Footnotes (212)



Neighborhood Empowerment and the Future of the City

Kenneth Stahl

Chapman University - The Dale Fowler School of Law

June 22, 2011

161 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 939-1008 (2013)
Chapman University Law Research Paper No. 11-21

In any given metropolitan region, scores of municipalities are locked in a zero-sum struggle for mobile sources of jobs and tax revenue. This competition appears to benefit small, homogeneous suburbs that can directly enact the uniform will of the electorate over large, diverse cities that are often ensnarled in conflict between competing interest groups. Cities can level the playing field with suburbs, however, by devolving municipal power to smaller, more homogeneous subgroups, such as neighborhoods. Indeed, many commentators have identified one such effort at neighborhood empowerment, the “business improvement district” (BID), as a key factor in the recent revitalization of many cities. The BID and the related “special assessment district” devolve the financing of infrastructure and services to landowners within a territorially designated area. Courts have widely upheld BIDs and special assessment districts against constitutional challenges.

Cities remain hamstrung in competing with suburbs, however, because courts prohibit cities from delegating what is perhaps the most coveted power of all to neighborhood groups: zoning. Since an unusual series of Supreme Court cases in the early twentieth century, it has been largely settled that cities may not constitutionally delegate the zoning power to sub-municipal groups, at least where the power is delegated specifically to landowners within a certain distance from a proposed land use change (a scheme I designate a “neighborhood zoning district”).

This Article argues that the judicial prohibition on neighborhood zoning districts is inconsistent with the judiciary’s permissive attitude toward BIDs and special assessment districts. As I demonstrate, the neighborhood zoning district is conceptually identical to the special assessment district/BID. Both devices are designed to enable large, diverse cities to capture some of the governance advantages of small, homogeneous suburbs by providing landowners with the direct ability to manage local externalities. This Article attempts to make sense of the disparate treatment accorded these devices by examining several grounds upon which they could potentially be, and have been, distinguished. I find, however, that the only meaningful distinction between these mechanisms is that special assessment districts/BIDs actually raise far more troubling public policy concerns than neighborhood zoning districts, thus calling into question why the judiciary has been so much more deferential toward the former than the latter. I conclude that courts should broadly defer to municipal delegations of power to sub-local groups, so that cities can work out their own strategies for surviving in an era of intense interlocal competition.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 70

Keywords: Zoning, Land Use, Special Assessment, Business Improvement District, Neighborhoods, Local Government, Public Choice

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: June 24, 2011 ; Last revised: May 27, 2013

Suggested Citation

Stahl, Kenneth, Neighborhood Empowerment and the Future of the City (June 22, 2011). 161 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 939-1008 (2013); Chapman University Law Research Paper No. 11-21. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1870337 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1870337

Contact Information

Kenneth Stahl (Contact Author)
Chapman University - The Dale Fowler School of Law ( email )
One University Drive
Orange, CA 92866-1099
United States

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 3,164
Downloads: 160
Download Rank: 147,161
Footnotes:  212
People who downloaded this paper also downloaded:
1. City Unplanning
By David Schleicher