User:Nataliejgomez/Zoning in the United States

Exclusionary
Zoning has long been criticized as a tool of racial and socio-economic exclusion and segregation, primarily through minimum lot-size requirements and land-use segregation. Early zoning codes often were explicitly racist, or designed to separate social classes.

Exclusionary practices remain common among suburbs wishing to keep out those deemed socioeconomically or ethnically undesirable: for example, representatives of the city of Barrington Hills, Illinois once told editors of the Real Estate section of the Chicago Tribune that the city's 5-acre (20,000 m2) minimum lot size helped to "keep out the riff-raff."[citation needed]

Occupancy restrictions, such as those restricting the number of unrelated occupants that can occupy a single-family dwelling, have been criticized for their rigidity to traditional ideas of the nuclear family. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas argued in the case Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas that argued it was the objective of the state to preserve traditional family values, something critics have used as a pejorative against single-family zoning.[citation needed]

Health and environmental concerns
A study of greenhouse gas emissions found that strict zoning laws "seem to be pushing new development towards places with higher emissions."[114] Public officials have argued that, while zoning laws have historically had a negative impact on the environment through their promotion of low-density sprawl and car-centric development, zoning can be used to preserve open space and as a tool to promote the usage of renewable energy.[115] These forms of development, by fostering car dependency, may also contribute to a rise in sedentary lifestyles and obesity.[116]

Exclusionary
Zoning has historically played a pivotal role in perpetuating racial and socio-economic disparities, often through the implementation of minimum lot-size requirements and land-use segregation. Early zoning codes were frequently overtly discriminatory, explicitly designed to segregate communities along racial and class lines.

Landmark cases related to Euclidean zoning, such as Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926), have shaped the legal landscape of land use policies in the United States. In this case, the Supreme Court decision in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) upheld the constitutionality of zoning ordinances enacted by local governments. In this case, Ambler Realty Co. challenged the zoning ordinance of Euclid, Ohio, which had divided the village into different zones for residential, commercial, and industrial use. The Court ruled that zoning ordinances are permissible under the police power of local governments as long as they are not arbitrary or unreasonable and are related to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.

This landmark decision is significant in the context of exclusionary or discriminatory zoning practices because it established the legal framework for zoning regulations in the United States. Zoning laws can be used to exclude certain land uses or types of development from specific areas, which can lead to exclusionary practices based on race, socio-economic status, or other discriminatory factors. The Court's decision acknowledged the authority of local governments to use zoning to regulate land use, including the power to exclude certain uses from residential districts.

In the case of Belle Terre v. Boraas (1974) the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a residential zoning ordinance enacted by the Village of Belle Terre in New York. This ordinance restricted land use to single-family dwellings and excluded lodging houses, boarding houses, fraternity houses, or multiple dwelling houses. The key issue in question was whether an ordinance that limits the number of unrelated individuals who can live together violates the U.S. Constitution.

The Court ultimately ruled that the ordinance did not violate the Constitution. It determined that the restriction on more than two unrelated individuals living together was a valid exercise of the village's police power. The Court viewed this as economic and social legislation, rather than a violation of fundamental rights. The ordinance was justified by the village's interest in promoting family values, youth values, and maintaining a quiet and secluded neighborhood environment.

This case exemplifies the intersection of zoning regulations with exclusionary or discriminatory practices. The zoning ordinance in Belle Terre effectively limited the types of households permitted within the village by defining "family" narrowly to include only those related by blood, adoption, or marriage living and cooking together as a single unit. By excluding lodging houses and fraternity houses, among others, the ordinance effectively restricted certain types of individuals or groups from residing in Belle Terre. This restriction could potentially be seen as exclusionary or discriminatory, particularly against unmarried individuals or groups of unrelated individuals seeking to live together.

Moreover, specific case studies further illuminate the impact of Euclidean zoning on different communities. For instance, in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, the landmark case Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel (1975) challenged exclusionary zoning practices, leading to the establishment of the Mount Laurel Doctrine, which mandated municipalities to provide realistic opportunities for the construction of affordable housing. Conversely, in Milliken v. Bradley (1974), the Supreme Court ruled against inter-district busing to desegregate schools, highlighting the complexities of addressing segregation beyond zoning regulations.

In conclusion, the historical and legal landscape surrounding zoning regulations in the United States reveals a complex interplay between land use policies, socio-economic disparities, and considerations of discrimination. The landmark cases discussed, such as Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. and Belle Terre v. Boraas, highlight how zoning ordinances have been used to regulate community development and residential composition. While these cases demonstrate the legal framework within which zoning operates, they also raise important questions about the potential impacts of zoning on housing accessibility, community diversity, and equitable development. The evolving understanding of zoning's role in shaping urban environments underscores the ongoing need for careful consideration and examination of zoning practices to ensure they align with principles of fairness and inclusivity without promoting exclusionary or discriminatory outcomes.

Health and Environmental Concerns
A study of greenhouse gas emissions found that strict zoning laws "seem to be pushing new development towards places with higher emissions." Historically, zoning laws have been associated with negative environmental impacts due to their promotion of low-density sprawl and car-centric development. However, zoning can also serve as a tool to preserve open space and promote the use of renewable energy. It's worth noting that certain types of development, particularly those that encourage car dependency, may contribute to sedentary lifestyles and obesity.

For example, Baltimore's Healthy Zoning Policy initiative demonstrates how zoning policies can be strategically employed to address health and environmental concerns within urban environments. By integrating health impact assessments (HIAs) into the zoning process, policymakers can identify potential impacts on factors such as physical activity, violent crime, and obesity. Through measures like promoting mixed-use development and transit-oriented design, zoning can foster walkable communities and mitigate issues like crime and obesity. Additionally, by regulating the concentration of certain establishments, such as off-premise alcohol outlets, zoning can help create safer and healthier neighborhoods. Overall, this approach highlights the potential of zoning as a tool for promoting public health and improving the built environment.

Understanding the long-term effects of zoning decisions on environmental sustainability and public health is crucial. Decisions made decades ago continue to shape communities today, underscoring the need for comprehensive zoning policies that prioritize health and environmental considerations. By leveraging zoning as a tool for promoting walkable communities, reducing pollution, and enhancing public health, policymakers can create more sustainable and equitable urban environments for future generations. This approach underscores the potential of zoning to impact public health outcomes and enhance the overall built environment.