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.
Nathan Rimmer v. City of Edmonds, WA
Defeating extortionate “forever tree” permit conditions to build family home
City of Edmonds cannot demand use of Nathan’s land that’s irrelevant or disproportionate to the permit he’s seeking. The City’s demand is unconstitutional, invalid, and cannot stand in the way of a final decision on his application. Such a rule serves no purpose other than to further aggrandize local zoning and land use authority while trampling the Constitution.Represented free of charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, Nathan is fighting back in state court to restore the right to use his own property free of unlawful conditions and end the extortionate practice of “forever tree” conditions for everyone else.
Jennifer Schultz and Ceanna Johnston v. Washington Vet Board and Secretary of Health
Defending the right to practice horse floating against unreasonable licensing requirements
Floating has a long history of being practiced by professionals who are not veterinarians. Washington should encourage, rather than criminalize, such skilled and caring trained professionals. Washington’s overly restrictive law harms horses and unreasonably denies citizens their right to earn a living—a blatant violation of the Washington Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause and the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Represented at no charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, Jennifer and Ceanna are fighting back in state court for their right to provide an essential equine healthcare service without undue government interference.
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
Supreme Court rules against extortionate permit fees
Once his land was ready and all George needed was a county building permit, he was stunned when told he could have his permit, but only if he paid a so-called traffic impact fee of more than $23,000. George weighed the immense cost against the hard work he put into his land and his yearning for a retirement home, and he paid the fee under protest. The County ignored his protest, so George sued, arguing the fees constituted an unconstitutional permit condition under three Supreme Court decisions—including two PLF victories.
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.
John Williams, et al. v. Alameda County, et al.
California housing providers fight for the right to possess their own property
The government cannot destroy owners’ fundamental right to repossess their property by prohibiting their ability to evict bad tenants. Represented at no charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, Sheanna, John, Jacqueline, Michael, and Robert are fighting back. These small-time rental property owners and the nonprofit Housing Providers of America filed a federal lawsuit to restore their property rights.
Yim v. City of Seattle (II)
Seattle wages unconstitutional war on landlords
In a misguided effort to combat racial disparities in housing, the City of Seattle passed the “Fair Chance Housing Ordinance,” which forbids housing providers from considering applicants’ criminal histories, usually uncovered in a standard background check. PLF represents several small-scale housing providers who are denied their constitutionally guaranteed choice to decide who to allow on their private property. An artist by trade, Kelly Lyles earns a modest living as a small-scale landlord, renting out a second house she owns in Seattle. Kelly has enjoyed a mutually beneficial and respectful relationship with her tenants. But if they move out, new city laws give her little to no choice over the next occupants.
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.