Pilling v. City of Healdsburg, CA
Entrepreneur mom fights zoning extortion to build new housing in California
Inclusionary zoning fees make building more expensive. Making something more expensive does not make it more affordable.
Oom Living, LLC v. City of Seattle
Fighting Seattle’s permitting extortion to build new housing
The government may not deny a benefit, even a discretionary one, based on a person's exercise of constitutional rights. Represented at no charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, Jenna and Oom are now fighting back with a state lawsuit challenging Seattle’s unconstitutional permitting condition.
HomeRoom, Inc. v. City of Shawnee, Kansas
Shared household ban harms families, housing, and due process
People choose to live with non-relatives for many reasons—they’re new to town, they want to make friends and build a community, they have no family nearby, or they can’t afford to buy a house or pay rent on a solo income. At a time when Americans are delaying marriage and families (in 2017, nearly 32% of all American adults lived in a shared household) and amidst an affordable housing crisis, the need for shared living is skyrocketing. But when an innovative new roommate living startup tried to meet this need in one Kansas city, the city council responded with an outright ban on co-living among four or more unrelated people.
Johnson v. City of East Orange
New Jersey family fights government-sanctioned property theft
In 2014, Lynette Johnson bought commercial property in East Orange, New Jersey, for her son and daughter to run their businesses. Unfortunately, Lynette never received notice of her tax assessments, the eventual tax lien, and foreclosure. By the time her tax lien was foreclosed in 2018, she owed close to $20,000. The city sold the property to a private investor for $101,000 a few months later and kept all proceeds. According to data collected by Pacific Legal Foundation, homeowners in New Jersey have lost more than $140 million in this type of equity theft from 2014 to 2020. Lynette is fighting back with a lawsuit against government-sanctioned theft of the equity in her property.
Riddick v. City of Malibu
Holding local California governments accountable for banning “granny flats”
Jason and Elizabeth Riddick live in Malibu, California, with their three children. Elizabeth’s mother, Renee Sperling, is aging with several disabilities, including immunodeficiency. The Riddicks sought to add an attached ADU onto their existing single-family home in order to provide Renee a safe and private place to live. The Riddicks’ modest proposal for their attached ADU was the perfect solution for them, and one which is explicitly condoned by California law as an essential part of the solution for the state’s housing crisis. In an effort to prevent this, however, the Malibu City Council denied the Riddicks’ ADU application. State law dealing with ADUs fully preempts local restrictions, so the Riddicks fought back.
Tyler v. Hennepin County
Victory! Supreme Court declares home equity theft unconstitutional
On May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court announced a unanimous decision in favor of Geraldine, ruling that home equity theft violates the Takings Clase of the Fifth Amendment. The Court explained that property rights are fundamental and cannot be erased by a state statute that redefines them out of existence. “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the decision, “but no more.”
Perez v. Wayne County
Family fights home equity theft to protect the American Dream
Though Erica Perez and her family spent most of their lives in New Jersey, they had their sights set on Detroit to join their relatives who already lived there. In 2012, Erica and her father Romualdo bought a property containing a four-unit apartment building and a dilapidated single-family home in Detroit for $60,000. They spent three years fixing up the property for renters, with plans to move there themselves when Romauldo retired. Though they paid property taxes each year, they unknowingly underpaid their 2014 taxes by $144. By 2017, Wayne County tacked on another $359 in interest, penalties and fees, foreclosed on their property, sold it for $108,000 and kept every cent beyond what they owed—as allowed by current state law. Erica and her dad never thought that the government could take their nest egg over such a small debt in the United States, so they’re fighting back.
Hawkins v. Haaland
Fighting to restore water control to rightful government authority
Oregon’s Upper Klamath Basin has long supported wildlife, as well as the livelihoods of ranchers, farmers, and other landowners. Some water rights belong to the Indian tribes by treaty, with the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) charged with exercising these rights consistent with the best interests of the Indian tribes, as well as the general public. But in 2013, the BIA handed over control of Upper Klamath Lake tributaries to the Klamath Tribes, resulting in widespread irrigation shutoffs that wipe out wildlife and agriculture. As a private party not expressly authorized by Congress to make water rights decisions, the tribes have no legal authority to assume BIA’s management responsibilities. More than two dozen ranchers and other water users have asked a federal court to decide just who should be calling the shots over their water rights.