Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

May 1, 2007 1 Volume 1 I No.9 Reinhart claimed that the new plan created :rn.i.xed use and rural zones in areas that were not conducive for affordable housii'1g. Accord- ing to Reinhart, the :rn.i.xed-use zones were small and located near high- ways but far from services, meani.J.lg that providing services to those lots would be expensive. The rural zones, which covered 90 percent of the undeveloped land in the county, were unsuitable because the zone had a high minL1IlUm lot size requirement. Reinhart sued the county, claiming that the new regulations and com- prehensive plan had disparate impact on affordable housii'1g in violation of the Fair Housing Act (Act). The lower court found in favor of the county without a trial, and Reinhart appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court had found that Reinhart had shown sllLLficiently that "the [new regulations would] i11crease the cost of residential develop- ment and the cost of a residential lot within the Rural Zone." Howev- er, it conchided that Reinhart had failed to show that the effect of the new regulations was discriminatory because "the increased-costs [were] imposed upon all residents of Linc011 COiL.'1ty regardless of their race or family status." Under the Act, a disparate impact claim challenged a facially neutral policy that "actually or predictably results in.. . discrimination" and had to show that a specific policy caused a significant disparate effect on a protected group. Once a party established a policy had this effect, the burden shifted to the OLQer party to show a legitimate reason existed for the policy. In weighing the county's justifications agai1'"lst the disparate impact its policy created, the court had to consider the strength of Reinhart's showing of discriminatory effect and "whether [Reinhart sought] to compel the [county] affirmatively to provide housing for members of a protected class or merely to restrain the [ county] from interfering with individual property ow-ners who wish[ed] to provide such housing. Despite the evidence he presented, Reinhart needed to show that the new regulations increased the cost of a dwelling by some amount and u~en show that this increase disparately impacted the ability of members of the protected group to buy a dwelling. It was not enough for m..-n to show that the regulation would i11crease housing costs and members of a protected group tend to be less wealthy than others. It was essential for Rei1-iliart's claim to show that those in the protect- ed class could afford housing before the new regulations and could not afford it afterwards. However, Reinhart could not do so. He presented no evidence related to the ex-pected prices of homes in the development or the amount by which those prices were impacted by the change ill the regulations. 3 179