Are Traffic Studies “Junk Science” That Don’t Belong in Court?

Currans, Kristina Marie; Stahl, Kenneth A.

doi:10.1080/01944363.2022.2136735

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Judicial "tastes" have become more friendly to antidevelopment sentiments since the 1970s, making lawsuits serious concerns for developers (Fischel 2004; Glaeser, Gyourko, andSaks 2005). Courts accept "junk science" traffic analyses as evidence sufficient to deny a project entirely or impose costly traffic mitigation expectations on developers (Currans and Stahl 2024). Even lawsuits that are "frivolous" and ultimately unsuccessful force developers to pay legal costs and delay projects; building permits may expire while a case moves through the system (Einstein, Glick, and Palmer 2020, pp.…”

Section: Local Planning Meetings and Nimbyismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Public Meeting Paradox: How NIMBY-Dominated Public Meetings Can Enable New Housing

Cuttner,

Hübert,

Montagnes

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public meetings to consider new housing proposals often feature visible and vocal opposition from neighboring residents, creating a perception that these meetings impede the growth of the housing supply contributing to inequality. We analyze a model where residents can legally challenge a developer’s housing proposal. A public meeting serves as a critical tool for developers to identify potential litigants, enabling them to adjust proposals and avoid legal action. Interestingly, developers prefer meetings dominated by opponents since it is easier to identify potentially litigious neighbors. Contrary to common belief, our findings suggest that public meetings dominated by NIMBY opponents can increase housing supply by fostering com- promise projects. This challenges the prevailing conventional wisdom that unrepresentative meetings significantly restrict housing development. Our analysis instead focuses attention on the threat of litigation as the key driver of the undersupply of housing.

show abstract

Section: Local Planning Meetings and Nimbyismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Public Meeting Paradox: How NIMBY-Dominated Public Meetings Can Enable New Housing

Cuttner,

Hübert,

Montagnes

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Judicial Review as a Second Stage of Land Use Approvals: The Case of Patrick Farm

Huennekens

2024

Journal of Planning Education and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the United States, courts can review zoning decisions and overturn local approvals. Judicial review doesn’t just stall projects, it alters land use governance. This paper uses a case study approach to investigate a highly litigated suburban multifamily development project. The case demonstrates how courts have become a de facto second stage of approvals. This has important implications for planning. Courts privilege abstract, technical, and procedural arguments and they elevate different land use actors to the fore. Pervasive judicial review also imbues planning work with future legal import, changing practices within the municipal system.

show abstract

Are Traffic Studies “Junk Science” That Don’t Belong in Court?

Cited by 2 publications

References 15 publications

The Public Meeting Paradox: How NIMBY-Dominated Public Meetings Can Enable New Housing

The Public Meeting Paradox: How NIMBY-Dominated Public Meetings Can Enable New Housing

Judicial Review as a Second Stage of Land Use Approvals: The Case of Patrick Farm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About