By Robert Romano

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under Secretary Ben Carson has completed its review of the 2015 Obama era Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation, and removed requirements for more than 1,200 cities and counties to make changes to local zoning in order to qualify for $3 billion of annual community development block grants.

Under the new rule, just finalized on Jan. 14, “Jurisdictions are free to choose to undertake changes to zoning or land-use policies as one method of complying with the AFFH obligation; however, no jurisdiction may have their certification questioned because they do not choose to undertake zoning changes.”

Believe it or not, this is a huge win for those who favor limited government and local control over decisions over what to build where.

The original 2015 regulation had included an explicit requirement calling for changes to local zoning, stating, “This final rule, and Assessment Tools and guidance to be issued, will assist recipients of Federal funding to use that funding and, if necessary, adjust their land use and zoning laws in accordance with their existing legal obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.”

At the time, this prompted Congress to take action against the AFFH rule by defunding the regulation’s implementation entirely in a House provision sponsored by U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.).

A more moderate provision sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) passed the Senate easily 87 to 9 in 2016 that barred the regulation from being used to affect local zoning.

The Collins amendment was then put into the 2017 omnibus, the 2018 omnibus, the 2019 omnibus, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, stating: “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to direct a grantee to undertake specific changes to existing zoning laws as part of carrying out the final rule entitled ‘Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing’ … or the notice entitled ‘Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Tool’…”

This author had submitted comments to HUD on this specific provision of law, noting that it barred implementation of AFFH as written and that, to comply, the regulation would have to be rewritten at a bare minimum to remove the zoning requirements and making any changes voluntary.

Now, with this final action by HUD, it has done so.

Ultimately, HUD found further legal justification to justify revising the AFFH rule to remove zoning mandates under 42 U.S. Code § 12705(c)(1), which states, “the adoption or continuation of a public policy identified pursuant to subsection (b)(4) [which includes local zoning ordinances as a potential barrier to affordable housing] shall not be a basis for the Secretary’s disapproval of a housing strategy…”

This provision, per HUD, “prohibits HUD from disapproving consolidated plans because a jurisdiction adopts or continues zoning ordinances or land-use policies.” Meaning funds cannot be denied on the basis of a city or county’s lack of a plan to change zoning, even if it is a barrier to more affordable housing.

Of course, future administrations might read 42. U.S. Code § 12705 the same way — the Obama administration certainly did not — and so to be on the safe side, Congress would be wise to continue including the Collins amendment in future omnibus bills to prevent this sort of overreach from ever happening again.

There are perfectly non-discriminatory reasons why localities may choose not to tinker with their local zoning. For example, in some jurisdictions, because demand for property would remain high, changes to zoning might still result in high prices, thereby mitigating the effects of reform to make housing more affordable. In densely populated regions, this will be a challenge, zoning or no zoning.

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning praised the HUD action, stating, “We are pleased that HUD Secretary Ben Carson produced a final rule that protects local zoning prerogatives while encouraging evaluation as to whether regulations have an adverse impact on housing affordability. This rightly stops the nationalization of zoning while still encouraging fair housing, once again placing primacy on cities and counties to make the best decisions for their communities. The last thing Americans needed was Washington, D.C. bureaucrats dictating zoning requirements based on Census maps, and Secretary Carson successfully ended this overreach.”

This could have gone much differently. Without Congress’ action in the months following the 2015 Obama regulation to defund federal intrusion into local zoning decisions, and then it being renewed repeatedly, sending a strong message to two administrations and asserting constitutional Article I powers of the purse, I cannot say that this rule would have ever been reformed.

I’m personally surprised five years of advocacy on this issue including grassroots outreach actually made a difference, but apparently it did.

For once, Washington, D.C. listened.

This is now one of those rare case examples limited government advocates can point to a direct Congressional action that was instrumental in helping to overturn a bad regulation. The power of the purse works to rein in government excesses, and we should let Congress know because they should use it more often.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.

Cartoon: Milk Dud

By A.F. Branco

 

Click here for a higher level resolution version.

---

Video: Impeachment scam exposed

 

To view online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKfa6olvvBc

---

ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured column from Fox News, Tucker Carlson says 2020 will be about what kind of country America is going to be:

Tucker Carlson: 2020 is about what kind of country we should have. Dems want it to be more like California

By Tucker Carlson

Say what you want about the 2020 presidential race, it's not what they used to call a "managerial election." It's not a contest to determine which branch of the establishment gets a turn of the wheel. This isn't a Clinton-Dole '96 kind of race where you're pretty sure that no matter who wins, things aren't really going to change very much.

This year, the one thing you can be certain of is that things could be very different when it's over. The issues at stake are bigger than just the economy or even our foreign policy commitments. 2020 is about the broadest possible questions. What kind of country should we have? Who should live here? What will America look like 50 years from now?

There are a lot of possible answers to those questions, but leading Democrats appear to have settled on their position. America, they're telling us should be a lot more like California.

Listen to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg explain his vision for the country he is hoping to lead.

“Michael Bloomberg, Democratic presidential candidate: I think that California can serve as a great example for the rest of this country. You have led the way on climate change, on fighting gun violence and on criminal justice, and you have as importantly, opened immigrants with open arms.

“California is part of this country that is something the rest of the country looks up to.”

Michael Bloomberg graduated from high school, almost 60 years ago. And at that time, a lot of what he just said was true. The rest of the country really did look up to California. Millions of Americans moved to California in search of a better life. It had the nation's best public schools, you know, and world-class universities that essentially were free.

Graduates from those universities created Silicon Valley, among other things, the birthplace of the Digital Age. Compared to the rest of America, poverty in California then was low and opportunity was virtually unlimited.

The middle-class utopia of old has evaporated. The state is in crisis. Now, that's obvious to everyone who lives here, certainly, but not to the people who run California.

The people who moved here in 1960 when Bloomberg graduated high school found their American dream.

But things have changed. Now, the children and grandchildren of those people are fleeing California.

We spent the last week here in Los Angeles for this show, and in some ways, it's still a very beautiful place. The western parts of the city are some of the richest neighborhoods in the world. You'd want to live there. They're immaculate, nice people.

But huge swaths of modern Los Angeles shock the conscience of anyone who drives by. Filth and disorder and clusters of homeless addicts. Tent cities continue for block after block. We have footage from one of our producers, Charlie Cougar, shot yesterday.

California has 12 percent of America's population, but it has a quarter of this country's homeless. Adjusted for the cost of living, California has the highest poverty rate of any state in America. Nearly a quarter of its people are poor. Why?

Well, there are a lot of reasons, but here are some. The state has the most expensive housing in the continental United States. It has the most expensive gasoline, thanks to the taxes. The free world-class universities, those are long gone.

The University of California system has some of the highest in-state tuition rates in the country. As we chronicled last week in our series, "American Dystopia," no city more accurately represents the implosion of California than San Francisco.

It's messed up, really messed up. That's right. And so finally normal people are leaving California. For decades, the state led the nation in attracting migrants from other states. Now, the flow has reversed.

Every year, the number of people leaving California for other places exceeds the number of people moving in by more than a hundred thousand. If it weren't for the constant stream of immigrants from abroad, California's population would be falling and fast.

The middle-class utopia of old has evaporated. The state is in crisis. Now, that's obvious to everyone who lives here, certainly, but not to the people who run California.

Instead of fixing the problems that are forcing people to flee, politicians here have spent the last few years on policies that are frivolous and counterproductive: Banning plastic straws, requiring background checks to buy shotgun shells, legalizing the intentional transmission of HIV.

Governor Gavin Newsom's most recent budget proposes $80 million in additional funding to provide free health care for illegal immigrant seniors. Who wants that?

This is the state the Democrats are calling the model for America. The state they want your state to be more like, at least you know what the election is about.

Permalink here.

 

---