Lotting Large: Reconsidering Large Lot Zoning Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Paul Boudreaux, Lotting Large: Reconsidering Large Lot Zoning, 68 Me. L. Rev. 1 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Paul Boudreaux, Lotting Large: Reconsidering Large Lot Zoning, 68 Me. L. Rev. 1 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Paul Boudreaux, Carrots and Sticks from President Obama’s Solyndra and Beyond, 4 Wash. & Lee J. Energy, Climate, & Env't. 1 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Paul Boudreaux, The Impact Xat: A New Approach to Charging for Growth, 43 U. Mem. L. Rev. 35 (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Paul Boudreaux, The Housing Bias: Rethinking Land Use Laws for a Diverse New America (Palgrave Macmillian, 2011)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
As more than 300 million Americans squeeze into our country, and as single-person households now outnumber families of parents and children, it's time to rethink our land use laws that favor the single-family house. Our zoning laws were created in an age that assumed that nearly everyone outside of central cities preferred to live a house separated from neighbors; this assumption is no longer valid and no longer sustainable for a crowded nation. The Housing Bias explores the legal discrimination against apartment buildings and other forms of low-cost residences and how these laws make housing more expensive for modest-income Americans – a key factor in the development of subprime loans and other risky practices that eventually sparked our current economic crisis. Why do our laws prohibit the construction of low-cost housing? It is largely because existing homeowners prefer to exclude them – an astonishing example of law’s granting a legal privilege to wealthier citizens, a privilege that our nation can no longer afford.
This provocative book explores real-world 21st-century controversies of the housing bias. It visits the recent effort of Virginia suburbs to enforce “overcrowding” laws against mostly Latino families who migrated to the area to build new subdivisions, and then moves to New York, where eminent domain is used through a dubious interpretation of law to seize condominiums of middle-class families to build a new pro basketball arena. The book reports on the story of how laws requiring large house lots prevented the construction of a mobile-home community in a growing rural county in southern Michigan, and then examines the failed effort to legalize the widespread phenomenon of small “granny flats” in the backyards of the middle-class homes in the packed city of Los Angeles.
The Housing Bias concludes by exploring how we could update our laws to accommodate the housing needs of a diverse new America, in which half of all households now consist of only one or two persons. The prescriptions range from the complex, such as using state laws to override the power of local homeowners to zone out low-cost housing in certain zones, to the simple, such as facilitating the construction of apartments above suburban malls. It is useful for libraries and for college courses on society or law or for any intelligent reader. Written in an entertaining and jargon-free style, The Housing Bias is essential reading for understanding the flaws and the future of the American community.
Date of Publication:
Paul Boudreaux, Time Machine: Emma’s Legal Education, 59 J. Legal Educ. 454 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Paul Boudreaux, Homes, Rights and Communities, 20 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 479 (2009)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Paul Boudreaux, Property Law, in Overview of U.S. Law (Ellen S. Podgor and John F. Cooper eds., 1st ed., LexisNexis, 2009)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Paul Boudreaux, Covert Opinion: Revealing a New Interpretation of Environmental Laws, 9 Vermont Journal of Envtl. L. 239 (2008)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Paul Boudreaux, Biodiversity and a New Best Case for Applying the Environmental Statues Extraterritorially, 37 Envtl. L. 1107 (2007)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The federal courts have applied a presumption that environmental statutes do not apply to conduct overseas. Efforts to overcome this presumption through the supposed intent of Congress have largely failed. This Article argues for a new best case for applying environmental laws extraterritorially, focusing on the Endangered Species Act's powerful section 7. This best case would assert that (1) the overseas action affects interests within the United States, such as the interest in preserving biodiversity for future needs, and (2) the action would not create a clash with the expectations of foreign governments or culture.
Date of Publication:
Paul Boudreaux, A New Clean Water Act, 37 Envtl. L. Reporter News and Analysis 10171 (2007)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The Supreme Court’s new federalism has struck its strongest blows so far on the Clean Water Act. In 2007, a sharply divided Court nearly struck down a large chunk of the Act’s protection of wetlands and other small waterways – five years after an earlier decision had narrowed the reach of the Act because of its supposed overreaching into state prerogative. Why has the Clean Water Act been the Court’s favorite target? One reason is that the statute was fatally flawed when enacted. Congress chose to cover "navigable waters," but its practical definition has never been clear. The result is a statutory and jurisprudential mess, with lessons that extend across issues of constitutional law, statutory construction, and, of course, federalism. This article proposes to jettison the Act’s reliance on the misguided term "navigable waters." Instead, the statute should directly regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce, such as fisheries, migratory birds, floods, and agriculture. An Act whose limits are tied to the law of the commerce power would be shielded from the federalist ax.