(7 of 9)
Land-use laws diminish not only the traditional rights of landowners but also the power of local governments. As a result, home rule—the right of local governments to determine their fate without outside interference—has become the banner under which opponents of planning rally. The issue is at the heart of controversies from Utah, where rural counties do not want to be told by the state how to deal with their land, to Martha's Vineyard, Mass., where islanders are hotly debating whether to accept the Federal Government's jurisdiction over their development.
New York State's Urban Development Corp. has suffered too. A quasi-public organization, it was formed in 1968 by the state legislature mainly to build low-and moderate-income housing—fast. The UDC was given unprecedented powers to "override" all the local zoning ordinances and construction codes that hamper building. After launching new towns in the country and apartment projects in cities, the UDC turned to the New York City suburbs, asking nine middle-income commuting communities to accept some 900 units of such housing. Citizens' groups in the towns immediately balked, saying that the UDC should not thrust itself into their affairs.
By last May they had mustered enough political support in the state capital to have the UDC's override powers stripped away by the legislature. Home rule prevailed.
Unfortunately, the pious talk about home rule often disguises an uglier issue. In Bedford, N. Y., for example, a woman who opposed the UDC's low-cost housing proposal stated: "Let one of those people in, and they'll bring their whole families from Carolina!" Similarly, when other suburban communities try to exclude new residents—especially blacks—their arguments invariably evoke traditional land controls.
"It used to be that the liberals were for zoning and the conservatives against it," says Harvard Urbanologist Paul Ylvisaker. "But now the situation has reversed itself, causing almost a conspiracy to use zoning against the poor and the blacks." Even the issue of the environment has been twisted to serve racist ends. Lawyer Richard Babcock, who has fought exclusion in the federal and Illinois courts, says: "Frequently environmental reasons are used as a legitimate cover for less respectable motives."
The states are probably as much at fault as the communities themselves for such abuses of land-use controls. They have neglected their constitutional right to control land use within their borders, making local governments—which are much more susceptible to pressures by local power groups —accept that responsibility almost by default. But now the states will have to recover their original power, whether they want it or not. Congress is almost sure to enact a major law this fall that will force states to oversee all development of their land.