When their beach house in Nags Head, North Carolina, burned to the ground in 2016, Michael and Cathy Zito wanted to rebuild. But when they sought permission from the town, they were told that the vegetation line had moved due to erosion and because their land now was “public property” they could not rebuild. The Zitos appealed to the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission and were told that being prohibited from building on your own property was not an “undue hardship.” Fortunately, the Pacific Legal Foundation is representing the couple in federal court. Having a home burn to the ground is tragic enough. But when government–the institution that is supposed to protect our rights, including the right to property–willfully prevents us from pursuing our personal happiness, something is monstrously wrong.
A California judge has ruled that the city of Clovis violated California law in failing to rezone the city to allow for more affordable housing. Every ten years, the state’s regional planning agencies assign each city and county a number of new housing units that must be built. The judge’s ruling requires the city to allow the construction of 4,000 new apartments and prevents citizens who oppose the new developments from using the zoning board to stop the projects. While the ruling neuters the Clovis zoning board–at least temporarily–a more appropriate ruling would have abolished zoning entirely.
A 2019 New York law titled the “Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act,” imposed a new set of burdens on landlords and property owners in the state. The law prohibits landlords from refusing new leases and requires landlords to charge rents below market rates so long as a tenant remains. A coalition of landlords, property managers, and related groups have filed five different lawsuits seeking to have the law declared unconstitutional. In their zeal to stabilize housing, legislators are creating greater instability for landlords.