Land use restrictions are not per se unconstitutional though. Rather, the regulating body may not require an ‘exaction.’ The government may not demand unrelated concessions from a permit applicant in return for the approval of the permit. The government may still demand concessions, but a “rational nexus” must exist between the government’s demands and the harm caused by granting the permit. Moreover, the Supreme Court requires a “rough proportionality” between the land use impacts and the requisite mitigation measures.[18] While these requirements may seem complicated, the lesson is that creating zoning programs requires careful and intentional implementation.
In the end, despite setbacks to addressing urban sprawl and the associated ills, hope for the future endures. State, county, and municipal governments have all started to take action, largely in the form of zoning regulations but also through loftier means. These efforts have received varying degrees of support and varying degrees of success. In order to ensure preservation of open space and realize a sustainable future, society must continue to advance these programs. Like Obama’s all-of-the-above energy policy, combating urban sprawl must utilize all available options, from zoning regulations to priority funding and everything in between.
[18] Nolan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).
