Tagtachian, DA; Barefoot, NN; Harreveld, AL
Zoning, whether with intent or by effect, has played a role in promoting municipal inequity and perpetuating segregation. The recent trend of municipalities to transition their zoning frameworks from traditional codes to form-based codes has occurred with a sight to address urban concerns such as access to public transit and limiting urban sprawl, but has not focused on alleviating municipal equity concerns or even ensuring the implementation of the codes do not exacerbate existing inequities. Formbased codes currently affect almost fourteen percent of the U.S. population and provide an opportunity to create communities truly reflective of the democratic principles of equality, inclusion, and justice. However this aspiration can only be achieved if policies and practices that disproportionately harm or increase the likelihood of harm to vulnerable communities are contemplated and addressed. This article identifies through case studies the extent of community involvement in the decision-making process surrounding form-based codes and their potential discriminatory impact. Additionally, this article provides mechanisms to address these social equity issues that can be tailored to each community's unique experiences and needs. This article is not a critique of the merits of form-based codes as a regulatory tool for land development, but rather its purpose is to shed light on two aspects of implementation common to form-based codes across the country, the limited extent to which low-income minority communities are able to meaningfully participate in the decision-making process and the increased likelihood of displacement of these same communities, and to propose mechanisms that will strengthen form-based codes by addressing or decreasing the likelihood of these inequitable effects. Form-based codes are touted as one of the only viable ways to combat the nationwide affordable housing and environmental crises perpetuated by urban sprawl. Form-based codes are a type of zoning regulation that streamline the approval process for mixed-use development in cities; encourage higher density and walkability; and use aesthetic form rather than land use as the organizing criteria. These codes are quite different from traditional or Euclidian zoning, the mainstay of zoning laws that for generations have divided land into zones with a specific regulatory character focused on the primary use (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural), and contributed to the creation of the urban sprawl that form-based codes seek to alleviate. The shift from Euclidian to form-based code often requires a complete overhaul of municipalities' zoning regulations. Importantly, this overhaul can often occur in a single legislative action. Once a form-based code gets adopted, typically large areas are upzoned-rezoned to increase intensity and/or density-in order to modify the urban design and to allow for mixed-use developments. Rezoning is a necessary component to transitioning to form-based code because it is the only way to implement the new urban planning and design vision in a traditionally zoned municipality. As traditional zoning separates land uses, this rezoning frequently consists of up-zoning to increase density and development often around mass-transit options. The areas that are up-zoned by form-based codes are often located where low-income minority communities that have been historically disenfranchised and discriminated against reside. Cities typically invest substantial time and resources to engage stakeholders (including developers and community members) at the onset of the process of transitioning to form-based codes. However, once executed, there exists limited opportunity for the meaningful participation of vulnerable communities and fewer avenues to ensure these communities are not disparately impacted. These issues can be addressed by providing for meaningful participation in project development and approvals after upzoning has occurred and by implementing anti-displacement strategies to protect historically disenfranchis d communities. Without additional protections to the affected communities, the mass up-zoning and consequent development may occur without significant or meaningful public participation opportunities because form-based codes allow developments to be built as a matter of right, and thereby remove the little leverage that is afforded to communities through notice and public hearing requirements if the up-zoning were requested in traditional zoning. This process is concerning because, across the country, a consistent consequence of the implementation of form-based codes is the increased likelihood of displacement of minority communities coupled with fewer opportunities in the administrative process to voice their concerns. This article addresses the impacts of form-based codes on communities' abilities to participate meaningfully in the development activities in the places where they live. Following the Introduction in Part I, Part II provides background on form-based codes and the differences between form-based and Euclidian (traditional) zoning. Part III analyzes four areas in the South that have adopted different types of form-based code: the City of Miami (SmartCode), Nashville (Urban Overlay Districts), Unincorporated MiamiDade County (Urban Center Districts) and Gulfport Mississippi (Optional Overlay). These four municipalities represent a sample of the various methods for implementing form-based code throughout the nation. This section examines the impacts of the implementation of form-based codes on the rates of development in these areas, the resulting demographic shifts, community involvement, and community responses to the implementation of form-based codes. Part IV discusses using the Fair Housing Act as a potential legal challenge to the effects of form-based codes and potential policy solutions to increase the likelihood of meaningful community participation and to decrease the likelihood of displacement.
Housing And Urban Planning; Housing; Neighborhoods; Urbanism; Land use; Air pollution; Dependence; Urban sprawl; Regulation; Motor vehicles; Industrial plants; Participation; Residential areas; Low income groups; Rural land use; Decision making; Living conditions; Municipalities; Urbanization; Automobiles; Public transportation; Recreational use; Federal government; Court decisions; Residential density; Community; Urban areas; Regulations; Case studies; Industrial pollution; Workplaces; Affordable housing; Automobile industry; San Francisco California; United States--US; Miami-Dade County Florida; Florida; Nashville Tennessee; 92615:Regulation, Licensing, and Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sectors