Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin June 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 12 <br />statistics to meet the prima facie test for disparate impact and also that it <br />had a legitimate and nondiscriminatory basis for denying the rezoning <br />request." <br />DECISION: City's Motion for Summary Judgment denied. <br />In denying the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, the United <br />States District Court for the District of Arizona held that the Develop- <br />ers' made a prima facie showing that the City's refusal to rezone the <br />Property had a discriminatory effect on Hispanics, in support of the <br />Developers' FHA disparate impact claim. <br />Again, to making a prima facie showing of disparate impact, the <br />Developers were required to establish: "(1) the occurrence of certain <br />outwardly neutral . . . practices, and (2) a significantly adverse or <br />disproportionate impact on persons of a particular [type] produced by <br />the [defendant's] facially neutral acts or practices." The court found that <br />the City's denial of the Developers' rezoning application was the <br />"outwardly neutral" practice at issue. The court also found that the <br />Developers had shown, through expert analysis, that the rezone denial <br />had a disproportionate effect on Hispanics. More specifically, the court <br />found that the Developers' expert had established that higher -density <br />housing (as the rezoning request sought) would result in reduced hous- <br />ing prices, at which a greater percentage of Hispanics were qualified as <br />home buyers. The court concluded that the Developers "did not just <br />show that the denial of a request to lower the density increases housing <br />costs and that Hispanics are generally less wealthy than whites in [the <br />City]." Rather, the court found that the Developers "provided statistical <br />evidence —based on a pool of qualified home purchasers within the rel- <br />evant market area and during the relevant time frame —regarding the <br />racial makeup of those priced out of the market as a result of the price <br />increase associated with the City's denial of [the Developers'] rezoning <br />application." <br />The City objected to the conclusions of the Developers' expert. The <br />City had argued that the Developers' expert did not know where within <br />the City any particular home purchaser actually wanted to buy a house, <br />and therefore could not quantify where there were Lost housing <br />opportunities. But the court rejected this argument, finding that: <br />Here, [the Developers] did not simply rely on statistics that show increased <br />home prices adversely affect Hispanics generally. They did not simply <br />look at 'all persons who purchased any kind of housing in [the City] at <br />any price range during the relevant time period.' Rather, they `narrowly <br />defined the particular type of housing and price ranges at issue, based on <br />the facts of the case, and showed how decisions affecting the availability <br />of housing in those price ranges, using actual [City] homebuyer data, had <br />a significantly disproportionate impact on qualified Hispanic buyers.' <br />That is, they showed the racial makeup of those priced out of a housing <br />opportunity due to the denial of [the Developers'] rezoning request and <br />consequently [the Developers'] proposed housing development. <br />© 2017 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />