Orange County Fair Housing Council v. City of Irvine
Case Summary
In hard-fought litigation challenging the City’s alleged exclusionary zoning practices and its resulting jobs/housing imbalance, the settlement provided that Irvine Company would build and the City would approve 725 affordable housing units
Additional Information
In 1975, something unplanned happened in the planned community of Irvine being developed by the Irvine Company. After the City of Irvine routinely approved a mega-industrial/business complex proposed by the company, one of California's first fair housing lawsuits was filed. The suit charged that Irvine was failing to provide housing opportunities for "all economic segments of the community" as required under state planning law. The new industrial/business complex, which would employ 38,000 workers, would greatly worsen this situation. CLIPI pressed the suit on behalf of the Orange County Fair Housing Council and seven Irvine residents, including former Irvine planning commissioner Wesley Marx and his wife Judith. Despite the Company's and City's extensive rhetoric about "planned development," an old development pattern was nonetheless being followed in grand style. While capturing tax revenues generated by the industrial/business complex, Irvine would burden surrounding communities with the necessity of providing Irvine’s lower income workers with affordable housing, schools and related public services. Irvine would provide only higher end residential projects. Although one Irvine city councilman denounced CLIPI’s efforts as “un-American,” the press began exploring the paradoxes in planned development, Irvine style. One editorial observed, "There is the broader question of the morality of a city living off its industry and consigning the bulk of its workers to other towns. Holding down oil consumption and air pollution through shorter work commuting also is in the public interest." In 1976, a State Attorney General's special housing task force singled out Irvine for not complying with the state law requirement to provide for its "fair share" of affordable housing.
Fortune, Business Week and other national publications took note of Irvine's growing jobs/housing imbalance problem and CLIPI's lawsuit. Several state legislators introduced a flurry of new housing bills to "clarify" the state–mandated housing provisions. Upon closer analysis, however, these bills were really designed to insulate local governments from responsibility to provide their fair share of affordable housing. As the press soon revealed, the bills were being introduced at the behest of the Irvine City Council and the Irvine Company. The bills languished. As their legislative end-runs faltered and press coverage intensified, the City and the Irvine Company became more amenable to settlement negotiations. Councilwoman Gabrielle Pryor observed that affordable housing "is not a dangerous proposition for Irvine." In a subsequent out-of-court settlement, the Company agreed to develop, and the City agreed to provide 725 units of affordable housing within the city.
Governor Jerry Brown, Jr. characterized the CLIPI settlement as "a major breakthrough for low income housing in Orange County." A Los Angeles Times editorial noted, "the magnitude of the Irvine Company’s commitment to build low income housing to offset the need its project will generate is believed to be unprecedented for a private developer. But most important are the hundreds of new housing units that will become available for low income residents—and the warning the lawsuit and settlement in Irvine serves on other communities that have been shirking their responsibility to provide their 'fair share’ of low income housing."
Honoring their commitment, the City and Company built several award-winning affordable housing complexes. Ironically, as time has gone on, the jobs/housing imbalance has become a severe statewide problem. Cities continue to compete for high revenue development, while shirking their affordable housing responsibilities. The State Legislature has done little to ensure compliance with housing element provisions. Workers continue to engage in ever-longer commutes that overload freeways, consume more gas and pollute the air.
(Published in the 30th Anniversary of CLIPI Dinner Program)
Where were at today
California’s jobs/housing imbalances, particularly in highly desirable areas to work and live, have become a severe statewide and nationwide problem. Availability of desirable jobs increases the demand for nearby housing, thereby pushing up area costs. Other factors play important, difficult to quantify, roles in escalating housing prices: high interest rates, supply chain issues, high costs of building materials and labor, economic uncertainties and the like. Cities continue to compete for high tax revenue development projects (e.g., big box retail), while shirking their affordable housing responsibilities. And then there is the political difficulty of convincing existing homeowners in high end (and low end) existing communities to welcome the additional traffic, gentrification, privacy encroachments and other impacts that new development projects often bring. Meanwhile, workers continue to engage in ever-longer commutes that overload freeways, consume more gas and pollute the air.
