Shawn Milligan’s Post

Nine New Jersey towns are challenging a new affordable housing law in court, claiming it unfairly burdens them with requirements to build more affordable homes. The law, passed in March, is meant to address the state’s severe housing shortage by requiring municipalities to meet certain affordable housing quotas. Proponents say overturning it could delay progress, worsening the housing crisis, while critics argue it imposes unrealistic demands. I wanted to ask my netwrok whether you think towns should have more control over their housing plans, or does the state need to step in to ensure affordable housing? https://lnkd.in/gWUR8P6T

🏙️ U.S. Supreme Court Declines Two Key Challenges to New York's Rent Stabilization Laws The United States Supreme Court recently turned down hearing two significant cases concerning New York's rent stabilization laws, both filed by individual owners of New York City apartment buildings. These landlords contended that the state's 2019 Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) represented an unlawful seizure of private property. However, despite dismissing these particular suits, Justice Clarence Thomas noted the importance of the matter and hinted that future cases might be heard if they provide concrete proof of injury resulting from the legislative changes. 📝 Referenced Court Cases by 74 Pinehurst LLC and 336-7 LLC The rejected cases—74 Pinehurst LLC v. New York and 335-7 LLC v. City of New York—were initiated by local proprietors lamenting the decrease in property values following the implementation of rent reforms. These reforms prohibited landlords from transferring costs associated with substantial renovations onto tenants and restricted methods previously used to withdraw apartments from rent stabilization programs. 🌍 Future Implications & Advocacy Efforts Although the Supreme Court denied these appeals, Justice Thomas emphasized the critical nature of evaluating the legality of such regulatory frameworks. In response to the verdict, Jay Martin, Executive Director of the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP), pledged to persistently push for revisions to the HSTPA within the state arena. As discussions around affordable housing policies evolve, it becomes increasingly vital to stay informed about events shaping the dynamics of rental markets and housing security. Keep an eye out for forthcoming developments that may influence the trajectory of this consequential topic. Contact my team for more information. #newyorkrealestate #rentalproperties #supremecourt

I've become a bit more involved in housing policy more and more in the past few years after realizing that the most basic problem with housing affordability in most metro areas, especially Los Angeles County. Sadly, I have to expand the area to the entire county because the zoning and building codes have forced builders to have no choice but to build single families and continue the trend toward sprawl. While policies such as Executive Direction 1 in LA are a big step, pro-unaffordability groups continue to stall any policy that would allow solving the musical chair problem of housing (too many people, not enough chairs). Hopefully, this latest win will slow down opposition to increasing supply. It is political will not the lack of resources that is causing so much suffering for renters and home buyers. https://lnkd.in/gsZnibwU

Several cities are suing the state over SB-9. Charter cities may be the first to start opposing the state law, which allows single family properties to be split into two buildable lots. Ironically, each city in CA has a housing mandate and most cities are not meeting that mandate. SB-9 offers a path towards creating more housing in already urban areas. Time will tell how this lawsuit impacts homeowners throughout CA. We haven't noticed any significant changes yet and we're hopeful that SB-9 will carry on. https://lnkd.in/ghYU6hY2

SB 9 has been struck down by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin. While his ruling is limited to five jurisdictions in the greater LA area at this time, I would not be surprised to see this extended statewide in the near future (perhaps within the next 1-2 months). However, it appears that a legislative fix is possible, which could resolve most of the judge's concerns. I will be intently following next steps taken by the Attorney General and the Legislature to combat this ruling. It appears that any repeal of SB 9 will likely be temporary as the State brings forward a fix. As an aside, since many news sources paint SB 9 as ineffective at bringing about new housing production, here are my personal observations and statistics. I have been approached by interested applicants on six occasions regarding SB 9 since the law took effect on January 1, 2022. I have had four parties move forward, with two receiving approvals to date. Of the four, three were in Ventura County, with one in Los Angeles County, with all proposed projects being within an incorporated City. Those approaching me are usually well versed in land use and/or small scale property management and development, with experience working in or adjacent to land use matters. Broadly, I have found the average homeowner is not even aware of SB 9. If they are, the subdivision process is daunting, which I think leads to most avoiding the process. https://lnkd.in/dq_MRVzq

Pilling v City of Healdsburg will be an interesting case to watch. Will the recent Sheetz decision allow the Plantiff to prevail where others have failed? I think the economics speak for themselves. How about you? Here's a summary of the compliant... The Plaintiff is challenging the application of its “inclusionary housing” ordinance to unlawfully exact over $20,000 as a condition of constructing a new single-family home and accessory dwelling unit. Mrs. Pilling is relief from what she believes represents an unconstitutional condition as applied to her Project and a refund of those same funds paid under protest to the City. Furthermore, Plaintiff states that the City imposed the fee without any demonstration of an essential nexus nor a rough proportionality between the anticipated impacts of Project and the purpose of the exaction. The Plaintiff is contending that Federal law and the U.S. Constitution prohibit the City from using its land-use permitting authority to exact money or other property from permit applicants unless the exaction is designed to mitigate the anticipated negative public impacts of the proposed development. Plaintiff asserts that the Project does not have any negative impact on the #affordability of homes in the City. On the contrary, elementary principles of #economics demonstrate that by building new #housing units, the Project increases #supply and therefore lowers—not raises—prices. #impactfees #nexus #pacificlegalfoundation https://lnkd.in/g6w9e9Ms

Starting July 1st in Florida, new regulations under HB 1203 will significantly limit the powers of Homeowners Associations (HOAs). Residents will no longer face citations or fines for minor infractions, such as leaving trash cans out too long or keeping holiday decorations up, without first receiving 14 days' written notice, a hearing, and an appeals process. Additionally, anyone wishing to become an HOA board member will now be required to undergo training and regulation. Historically, some HOAs have been criticized for creating hostile environments and engaging in unfair housing practices, including discriminatory rule enforcement and biased screening processes. Despite the Fair Housing Act, such issues persist, with HOAs finding subtle ways to continue discriminatory practices. Florida’s new law aims to address these issues by ensuring HOA leaders are better educated and regulated, which could serve as a model for other states to follow. Before buying a home with an HOA, it’s recommended to check for any complaints against the HOA, talk to current residents, and assess the ease of changing HOA leadership.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear cases challenging New York's rent stabilization laws, providing temporary relief to tenants in approximately 1 million rent-stabilized homes in New York City. The lawsuits, initiated by landlord groups, claimed that the state's rent stabilization laws are unconstitutional, arguing they offer tenants renewable leases under rigid conditions outside landlords' control. Despite this setback, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the issue might be revisited in the future, emphasizing its constitutional significance. Landlords have expressed frustration, particularly after tenant protection measures were enhanced in 2019, describing the regulations as exceptionally restrictive. The Community Housing Improvement Program and Rent Stabilization Association anticipate further challenges to the law, citing financial distress in rent-stabilized buildings which could impact tenants' living conditions. New York City's Rent Stabilization Law, established in 1969 and updated since, currently protects around 2 million residents from sudden rent increases and ensures lease renewal rights. Tenant groups and the Legal Aid Society hailed the Supreme Court's decision as a victory for legal protections amid an ongoing housing crisis, as rent-stabilized homes remain in high demand due to rising rents and scarce availability. #NYCRentStabilization #SupremeCourtDecision #TenantProtection #HousingCrisis #NewYorkRentLaws #LandlordTenantLaw #AffordableHousing https://lnkd.in/eXCt24rC

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear appeals from landlord groups challenging New York City's rent stabilization laws, which cap rent increases and restrict evictions to preserve affordable housing. Lower courts had upheld the laws, ruling they do not violate the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause," which prohibits the government from taking private property without fair compensation. New York's rent stabilization system, enacted in 1969, applies to buildings with six or more units built before 1974, covering nearly one million apartments. The Supreme Court’s refusal follows earlier decisions by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the regulations. Although conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed interest in reviewing the cases, the court ultimately opted not to intervene. This decision aligns with a similar case rejected in February, leaving the rent stabilization laws intact. It remains to be seen if future challenges will arise and gain traction. Attorney Advertising: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. https://lnkd.in/eUuKgzMv.

🏠 California's Housing Crisis and SB 9 Update 🚧 Despite the recent ruling by a Los Angeles District Court deeming Senate Bill 9 unconstitutional, the fight for more accessible housing in California is far from over. SB 9, introduced to address our state's severe housing shortage, allows property owners to split single-family lots and potentially create up to four housing units per lot. This innovative approach aimed to alleviate the skyrocketing housing costs and make homeownership more attainable. Unfortunately, the bill faced opposition and a legal challenge from several cities, leading to the recent court decision. However, this is likely just a bump in the road. Legal experts anticipate an appeal, and there's a strong belief that the appeals court will overturn this decision. As a commercial realtor committed to expanding housing opportunities, I believe it's crucial to stay informed and engaged with these developments. Expanding our housing supply is not just about building homes; it's about building communities. Let's continue to advocate for smart, sustainable solutions that will allow our neighborhoods to thrive. For more details on this, check out the full article here: https://lnkd.in/g_VrJFkY (Note: Article is behind a Members only login). Whether you're looking for a commercial property, or your next home, we're here to help guide you through the process - contact us today! AJ George DRE# 01353648 [email protected] 858-598-3589 AJGeorge.com . . . . #AJGeorgeResimercial #ResimercialRealEstate #ResimercialRealtor #UrbanDevelopment #SB9 #RealEstateUpdate #RealEstateNews #RealEstateLegislation #AffordableHousing