Housing

In Debbane v. City and County of San Francisco, No. A172067 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 11, 2026), the California Court of Appeal upheld the invalidation of San Francisco’s Proposition M, which the voters enacted “to ‘tax’ owners of certain residential units in buildings with more than two units for any unit kept ‘vacant’ for more than 182 days.” Slip op. at 1. The purpose of Prop M is to make it too economically painful for property owners to withhold units from the rental market, “thereby increasing the number of housing units available for occupancy.” Id.
Continue Reading San Francisco Vacancy “Tax” Invalidated: You Can’t Be Forced To Rent Your Property

In New York v. Commons West, LLC, No. CV-23-1255 (Mar. 5, 2026), the Appellate Division of New York’s Supreme Court (dun-dun) invalidated a New York statute that forbid property owners from considering a prospective tenant’s source of income when deciding to whom to rent a property. The legislature effectively required owners to “accept Section 8 vouchers and, as a condition of participating in that program, agree to allow search of their properties and records.” Slip op. at 5. The court held this violates the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. …
Continue Reading NY App Div: Requiring Property Owners To Accept Section 8 Tenants Violates Fourth Amendment

Here’s a case we’ve been following (esp. because our firm is counsel for the two intervenors). In Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification, LLC v. Montana, No. DA 25-0200 (Mar. 17, 2026), the Montana Supreme Court upheld the “Montana miracle” housing and zoning reform statute against an equal protection challenge. This case is important not only because it upholds loosening of restrictions on housing development and private property rights, but because it also confirms the freedom of contract, and recognizes that private owner remain free to control the use of their own property in the best manner they see fit. …
Continue Reading YIMBY v NIMBY In Montana Supreme Court: “housing reform statutes do not violate the right to equal protection solely because the law treats people not subject to private covenants differently.”

BK2026_logo

As you already know, registration is also underway for the 22d Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, October 23-24, 2025, at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia.

The Conference is expressly designed to get legal academics and the nation’s best dirt law practitioners in the same room, discussing how legal scholarship and law…

Charlottesvillezoning

This interesting — and kind of funny — story has been circulating: “Judge’s ruling means Charlottesville has no zoning laws whatsoever right now.” 

What happened? Is the counter-Euclid revolution underway? Did the judge rediscover Nectow? Did Charlottesville voters decide to go Full Houston? 

No, nothing quite as dramatic. The story…

Euclidsymposium

With the 100th anniversary of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. nearly upon us in 2026, we’ve put together a series of events designed to reexamine the case that set the stage for a century’s-worth of intense land use regulations and restrictions.

Are Euclid‘s assumptions and conclusions still valid? If the…

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.

In Hudson Valley Property Owners Ass’n v. City of Kingston, No. 59 (June 18, 2025), the New York Court of Appeals held that after a municipality declares a housing emergency allowing it to regulate the amount of rent, it has the power to order…

Here’s what we’re reading this day:

…