Showing papers in "Urban Lawyer in 2006"

State and local climate change initiatives: What is motivating state and local governments to address a global problem and what does this say about federalism and environmental law?

Abstract: The current status of climate change policy represents something of a federalism role reversal in environmental law. Rather than the federal government playing the dominant role of establishing standards and ground rules for regulatory programs, it is the state governments that are actively pursuing programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and sequester carbon while the federal government has adopted a nonregulatory, and, many would argue, a do-very-little approach. In this essay, Kirsten Engel probes why states are addressing a global problem such as climate change and what will be the long-term significance of the states' activities, both in terms of the nation's response to climate change and for the structure of federalism in environmental law. She concludes that there are numerous motivations for state and local action, illustrating the multidimensional nature of climate policy. She contends that the long-term significance of state and local action may be in its capacity to trigger federal greenhouse gas regulation or to encourage international diplomatic efforts to address climate change.

Form-Based Land Development Regulations

Abstract: The latest iteration of new urbanist-influenced land development regulations are known as "form based codes.” The form-based approach has, up until recently, been applied mainly in private-covenanted regimes, which is a very different legal atmosphere than the public regulatory sphere. Recently, however, local governments have begun to put form-based codes into place. This move along the continuum from private to public reveals the legal issues attendant to these types of regulations. This article serves as an introduction to form-based codes for lawyers. Three primary legal issues that arise when local governments begin to enact these design-based land use regulatory tools are identified and described. These issues are: (1) authorization (the manner in which these new regulations are enabled); (2) discretion (the manner in which the regulations are written); and (3) delegation (the manner in which the regulations are administered).

Ethical Considerations in Land Use Decision Making: 2006 Annual Review of Cases and Opinions

Abstract: tor reported cases and opinions documenting allegations of unethical conduct involved in land use planning and zoning decision making. The majority of the reported cases once again deal with real and per ceived conflicts of interest situations based in part on personal financial interests (e.g., investments in real estate), employment, personal rela tionships, and familial relationships. In addition, there were a number of reported cases addressing bias, prejudice, and bad faith on the part of decision makers. Compatibility of dual office holding was also the subject of a number of opinions from state attorneys general. The an nual ethics update is designed to provide land use lawyers with fact patterns where ethics allegations are actually raised and the analysis that is used to determine whether the actions complained of constitute illegal and improper conduct. While the facts in each specific case presented are naturally analyzed under relevant state laws, the general principles are, for the most part, instructive and the concepts are easily transferable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Zoning Bias II: A Study of Oregon's Zoning Commission Composition Restrictions

Abstract: *Richard M. and Anita Calkins Distinguished Professor of Law, Drake Law School. The authors wish to thank those civil servants in Oregon who responded to our survey of municipalities. Professor Anderson also wishes to thank Steven and Linda Wickett, whose case provided the original inspiration for these surveys. Professor Anderson acknowledges the helpful assistance of his research assistant, Aaron Brees, Drake Law School class of 2007. **Associate, Andereck, Evans, Milne, Peace & Widger, L.L.C., Jefferson City, Missouri; Drake Law School, 2005. 1. See David D. Owens, The Zoning Variance: Reappraisal and Recommendations for Reform of a Much-Maligned Tool, 29 COLUM. J. ENVTL. L. 279, 280 (2004) (describing the effects of variance). 2. Jerry L. Anderson & Erin Sass, Is the Wheel Unbalanced? A Study of Bias on Zoning Boards, 36 URB. LAW. 447 (2004) [hereinafter “Anderson & Sass”]. 3. Id. at 453–54. The term “zoning board” is used here to mean both the planning and zoning commission, which typically reviews zoning amendments and plats of development, and the board of zoning adjustment, which typically rules on variances and special permits. 4. IOWA CODE § 414.8 (2004). Zoning Bias II: A Study of Oregon’s Zoning Commission Composition Restrictions