California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose
California Supreme Court
61 Cal.4th 435, 136 S. Ct. 928 (2016)
Over the years, the California legislature passed several laws promoting affordable-housing policies at the municipal level. Pursuant to state law, the City of San Jose (defendant) conducted significant studies and analysis regarding the affordability of its housing supply. The city concluded that requiring new developments to include affordable units was consistent with municipal and state goals to protect the public welfare by promoting an adequate supply of housing for residents of all economic means because new market-rate housing was reasonably related to increasing housing prices. In 2010, the city enacted an inclusionary-housing ordinance (ordinance), which required developers seeking permits for developments that created 20 or more new dwelling units to sell 15 percent of the units at an affordable-housing cost. The ordinance had several options for alternative compliance and a waiver provision that applied if a developer could show that the ordinance’s requirements would result in an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. The California Building Industry Association (building association) (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit in the superior court, claiming that the ordinance resulted in an unconstitutional exaction on a developer because a permit conditioned on the requirement that a developer sell 15 percent of its units at below-market price was a constitutionally impermissible taking without just compensation. The building association argued that the city needed to show a reasonable relationship between new developments and the city’s affordable-housing problem under the higher standard of the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine. The superior court found for the building association and enjoined the city’s enforcement of the ordinance. The appellate court reversed the superior court’s judgment. The building association appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Cantil-Sakauye, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 726,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 726,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.