You are on page 1of 40

Mayberry, William

Zoning Restrictions: Property, Rights, and The Greater Good


Table of Contents
Page #
Abstract
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.

Historical Background
Stakeholder Make-Up
Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
Growth of the Metropolis and Exclusionary Practices
Post-WWII Economy and Sub-urbanism
The Changing CapMetro
Lawrence V. Texas
A Case for the Homeowner
A Case for the Investors and Their Representation
A Case for the Students
Conclusion

3
7
11
14
16
19
22
24
26
30

Zoning Restrictions: Property, Rights, and The Greater Good


William Mayberry-BPA
Political Science Masters Candidate
Texas State University-San Marcos
Political Science 5350-December 4th, 2014
Abstract
The purpose of the paper is to look at the relationship of the migrant occupant and the homeowning citizens that inhabit the neighborhoods that surround the University of Texas-Austin due
to the increased use of zoning restrictions to prohibit certain cohabitation practices. This paper
takes a brief but thorough examination of the zoning practices across the United States and key
court cases in developing a dialogue that best describes Austins current situation. Next the
paper identifies both sides respective arguments in defending their perceived rights with specific
relationship to the rule of law that has been developed by previous court cases. Finally, the paper
provides a brief critique of the promulgation of certain rules by the city designed to change
certain cohabitation practices. Finally this urges promotion of more progressive ideas to limit the
degradation of the historic neighborhoods that surround the University of Texas-Austin.

I.

Introduction

The right to affordable housing has long been a hot conversation in many social, political,
and judicial arenas throughout this country. As the country continues to change from that of a
rural economy, which it had been for its first 150 years, its urban areas become the settings that
are ripe for the development of centers for higher learning and havens of job producing
opportunities. Practices such as zoning restrictions, gentrification practices, and inadvertent
exclusionary practices have had the ability to change the entire landscape of neighborhoods,
cities, and even larger metropolitan areas as they continue to undergo this migration. Austin is
currently going through these changes, and many say they have been needed for some time.1 The
influx of population from other parts of the country, immigration, and the choice of traditionally
migrant occupants have largely changed the population dynamic in the greater Austin
metropolitan area.2 For the purpose of the paper migrant occupant will refer to the student
population. The University Texas-Austin (UT) is currently experiencing an increase much like
the rest of the nation in enrollment size. Many times in larger institutions this puts a strain on the
housing market of the areas that surround the college. The goal of zoning regulations is to
maintain the homogeneity of the chief investments of the average American, the house.3 The
influx of young people into the Austin area that subside on lower incomes demands that the city

1 "Stop Stealth Dorms." Stop Stealth Dorms. January 1, 2014. Accessed December 4, 2014.
http://stopstealthdorms.com/.

2 Swiatecki, Chad. "Cover Story: The Incredible Shrinking Dollar in Austin." Austin Business
Journal, 2013. Accessed November 19, 2014. http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/printedition/2013/11/08/austin-cant-afford-this-home.html?page=all.

"Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law,
accessed November 25, 2014 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1925/1925_31.

look at alternative means rather than purely zoning laws to protect all citizens fairly in the
socioeconomic battlefield that land-use regulations tend to create.
According to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board the number of students in
the greater Austin area (and for this purpose Ill include Texas State University-San Marcos) is
right around 100,000 students (fall semester 2013).4 Many college campuses around the country
have the means and space to house a large number of their student population at on-campus and
university directed off-campus housing locations, but there are also several that do not. Dorms
are a traditional starting point for many undergraduate freshman and sophomore students.
However, in many cases it is not uncommon for students to desire and actually do move offcampus and inhabit the local communities of their respective universities once these formative
years are over. There are several factors that influence this migration. Desire to live with
friends, need to live independently, and in some cases the cost savings relative to paying for oncampus housing. Frequently it happens that it is actually more expensive to live off-campus, but
this is not the gold standard.
II.

Stakeholder Make-Up

For the purpose of this paper I will be focusing largely on the Hyde Park neighborhood
area of Austin so population and financial numbers will deal with the University of Texas-Austin.
At the University of Texas, for instance, living on campus in most cases is simply not an option.
With a total enrollment of around 52,000 students the university only has just over 7,000 rooms
for housing with the cheapest option being just over $9000 for a 9 month term (although the
student does receive $1500 for meals at approved facilities and $300 worth of vouchers for local
4 "THECB - Report Center." THECB - Report Center. November 19, 2014. Accessed November
19, 2014. http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/DocFetch.cfm?DocID=3243.

restaurants and eateries).5 Bloomberg online, sourcing the Bureau of Labor & Statistics (BLS),
stated that the growth over the last 30 years in the cost of tuition across the country has been
astronomical, an unbelievable 10-fold increase.6 The National Center of Education Statistics has
said that between 2001 and 2011 there has also been an increase of 32% nationally of
enrollment.7 Simply stated, secondary education in the United States is an industry, and a
lucrative one at that. The national educational complex is able to create or influence industry
seemingly out of thin air: restaurants, printing technologies, text books, and real estate in areas
where the population demands it.
The NCES calculated that between 1996 and 2010 degree granting secondary education
enrollment increase 46% and projects that number to increase an additional 11% before 2021.8
Given the current Presidential administrations agenda that number could increase even higher.9
In areas that surround large college campuses most Realtors would advise in purchasing versus
leasing or purchasing with the purpose of leasing to students, because of these numerical
projections. The investment in off-campus housing for the purposes of renting or selling multi5 "The University of Texas at Austin." Why UT? January 1, 2014. Accessed November 19,
2014. http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/whyut.

6 Jamrisko, Michelle. "Cost of College Degree in U.S. Soars 12 Fold: Chart of the Day."
Bloomberg.com. August 15, 2012. Accessed November 19, 2014.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/cost-of-college-degree-in-u-s-soars-12-foldchart-of-the-day.html.

7 National Center of Education Statistics. 2013. Accessed November 19, 2014.


http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98.
8 Ibid.
9 "College Affordability and Completion: Ensuring a Pathway to Opportunity." U.S.
Department of Education. January 1, 2014. Accessed November 19, 2014.
http://www.ed.gov/college.

unit and rental properties can be much more lucrative than other long term investments, for
instance a retirement fund or other traditional means of investment.
When there is an increase like of enrollment, as the numbers show, there is an inherent
increase in the amount of graduates ready to find employment in higher income careers. Many
of these positions have a tendency to be located not in rural areas, but in urban settings. The
ability to comingle diverse populations, expand social and political horizons, and create a culture
that is necessary to developing free thought are qualities that can be found in all contemporary
cities. Austin is no different than any other large metropolitan area, however, it has consistently
been ranked among the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the country.10
Limited on-campus housing, a booming job market, and the increased costs associated
with college education have created a damaging trinity which has helped to create the incredibly
competitive housing market across the city, but especially in areas located central to the
University of Texas.11 As a consequence, these areas are increasingly undergoing an intense
communal strain between the migrant occupant and the established residents that own houses.
In recent years this has developed into an issue that has become political, social, and
economically tense.12 As a result the residents of the area have looked towards the city of Austin
for refuge from the onslaught of students that desire to cohabitate in the areas seen in Table 1.
The neighborhoods in question cover the entire swath of the map due to the amount of students
10 Tang, Eric, and Chunhui Ren. "Outlier: The Case of Austin's Declining AfricanAmerican Population." The University of Texas. May 8, 2014. Accessed December 4,
2014. http://www.utexas.edu/cola/insts/iupra/_files/pdf/Austin AA pop policy
brief_FINAL.pdf. 2.
11 Swiatecki, Cover Story.
12 Ibid.
6

currently residing off campus.13 The issue at stake is a divide on property rights between
owner/investors and their representation and those established residents who live in these areas
with students caught in the middle and often the creators of the problems that drive the issue.
Table 1. Shows a layout of the maps that surround the University of Texas
Source: Maps of Austin.

13Max, Leaman. "Central Austin, Texas." Maps of Austin Neighborhood Maps of Austin Texas.
January 1, 2014. Accessed November 19, 2014. https://www.mapsofaustin.com/centralaustin-map.

III.

Historical Background

From its inception as a young nation the United States has had the same problems that
many other previously developed nations had with regards to individual liberties, ownership, and
property rights. Some people view our national principle is perched on the rights of ownership
and the idea that government does not have the right to interfere with what one may or may not
do with the property with which he or she owns.14 Often attributed to Jacksonian politics, a view
that any government is bad government, is a sentiment that is frequently apart of the American
lexicon in regards to private property ownership. This is not only an incorrect view of the
political fervor of the time it often tends to be an inflammatory view point. However, this
opinion is by no means the standard. In reality it exists on a general ebb and flow with the
economic and political cycles. In reality legislation upheld by court cases throughout the history
of this country have been more in favor of the idea of the greater good.15 That is that the welfare
of the general public is often sought to be more protected than that of an individuals rights.
While the idea of land use and development guidelines are firmly rooted in English
common law, the form of zoning that I choose to focus developed directly in industrial America
and during the progressive era movements. Under the federal system the right to govern land use
has been left to the states.16 Almost all of the states have taken this power and granted, within
14 "Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of
Law, accessed November 25, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/19701979/1973/1973_73_191.
15 Kens, Paul A. "Lochner v. New York: Tradition or Change in Constitutional Law?"
NYU Journal of Law and Liberty 1, no. 1 (2005): 404-31. Accessed November 19,
2014. http://migration.nyulaw.me/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060903.pdf.
16 Fischel, William. "An Economic History of Zoning and a Cure for Its Exclusionary Effects."
Dartmouth College. December 18, 2001. Accessed December 3, 2014.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/02-03.pdf.

their own statutes, land use restrictions through police power local governments and
municipalities.17 Zoning regulations create what our land use guidelines and this is protected by
the state codes. Zoning regulations are a remarkable amalgam of all of the levels of the Federal
system of government. While they are created and instituted at the bottom level (localities and
municipalities) they must adhere to the state laws developed within the scope of the centralized
federal government, with the Supreme Court having final rule in what is and isnt applicable.
However, these rules must also abide by certain regulations that have been instituted over the
years to protect people belonging to certain groups. People with disabilities, certain creeds and
color, people of certain income, and even protection handed down based on age.18
Zoning in its contemporary form, however, is a relatively new phenomenon on the
national scale. The first zoning ordinance was passed New York City around 1916.19 The codes
or rules were reactionary to the building of the Equitable Building in Manhattan. After the
building was erected there was an incredible push back from the general public because the
building restricted sunlight to other buildings and streets in a large vicinity surrounding it. It was
a public nuisance and was dealt with accordingly. Following the implementation of this zoning
code the city was split up into different areas in which certain rules had to be followed by the

17 Ibid.
18 Fischel, An Economic History, 1-32
19 Dunski, Sarah. "Make Way for the New Kids on the Block: The Possible Zoning
Implications of Lawrence v. Kansas." University of Illinois Law Review 2005, no. 3
(2005): 847-72. Accessed November 14, 2014. http://illinoislawreview.org/wpcontent/ilr-content/articles/2005/3/Dunski.pdf.
9

guidelines set for that district (zones).20 This can be seen as the first official step towards the
modern form of zoning. While urbanization had been occurring since the middle of the 19th
century; it was the introduction of the streetcar around the 1870s that gave birth to the
contemporary suburban concept.21 Gradually throughout the 1920s many other cities across the
country began to institute their own version of zoning guidelines. Zoning laws were enacted and
governed arbitrarily until 1926 when they were first questioned and brought before the Supreme
Court.22
IV.

Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.

In 1925 the township of Euclid, Ohio (a suburb located outside of Cleveland) enacted
several zoning ordinances designed to control what type of building could be built where.23 A
key to the provisions was that they zoned particular areas of a 68 acre piece of property into
several different types of zones for both area usage and height allowance. Thus rendering the
property useless for its desired intents by the owners. Ambler Realty Co. sued the Village of
Euclid (just outside Cleveland) because they could no longer use the land as they had wished.
They sued the city citing the 14th Amendment say that their due process clause had been
violated, and they were dealt sever damages because they could no longer use the land to its
highest and best use.24 The United States Supreme Court decided on behalf of the city of Euclid.
The also established a couple guidelines to adhere to when deciding whether or not an ordinance
20 Ibid.
21 Fischel, An Economic History, 4-5
22 Dunski, Make Way, 849.
23 Ibid. 849
24 Ibid. 849
10

is fair: 1) bear a clear relationship to public health, safety, morals or general welfare; and 2) be
reasonable, not arbitrary.25 The majority opinion stated that this was possible because it was
within the bounds of police duties allowed to municipalities. At this current time in American
politics this was a common outcome of Supreme Court cases regarding municipalities to enforce
local laws. The allowance of state and local governments to use their police powers to protect
the larger population.26 This is not only a landmark case in that it holds up zoning as a valid
policy tool, but also because it defends the rights of the general public over the individual.
Nectow v. Cambridge, decided by the Supreme Court in 1928 helped to curb the frivolous
manner with which some municipalities issued zoning restrictions.27 In this case an individual
that owned a plot of land, was attempting to sell it, and was unable to after the city changed their
zoning lines and that adversely affected the sellers plot in specific. The difference however in
this outcome was the fact that the violation by the city was blatant with regards to the individual
and his own plot of property and the industrial/commercial ways the buyer he had established
wanted to use the property.28 The city of Cambridge was found to be unusually arbitrary in the
manner with which they defined the zoning coordinates. In this case the courts found that the
city of Cambridge had overstepped its bounds, but only because it did not adhere to the practices
devised in the Euclid case. In the explanation the court went so far as to further reaffirm that
25 Brener, Katia. "Belle Terre and Single-Family Home Ordinances: Judicial
Perceptions of Local Government and the Presumption of Validity" NYU Law Review
74, no. 447 (1999): 447-84. Accessed November 19, 2014.
http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-74-2-Brener.pdf.
451.
26 Ibid. 451
27 Dunski, Make Room, 851.
28 Ibid. 852
11

except for clear cases of maleficence they are in no position to dictate zoning practices, and will
instead choose to defer to the judgment of the zoning boards.29
From their inception the goals of zoning restrictions are to protect the common general
citizen and the public good. The ultimate goal of the zones were to keep undesirable properties
from encroaching on residences that were already established. It can be looked at as a type of
government protection against the aforementioned undesirables. It should be noted that the
creation of zoning ordinances existed long before there was any kind of home-value or
homeowners insurance.30 At this time a homeowner had very little protection from the
degradation of property values by industrial and commercial enterprises. The main protections
really came of great importance in the suburban area where the citizens and voting home owners
felt that their chief financial investment, their home, was under attack from other groups or
entities who were not invested in the areas that they sought to put their economic tools.
V.

Growth of the Metropolis and Exclusionary Practices

It was at this time around the early part of the 20th century that suburban towns were
incorporating and growing. This growth became what we consider the metropolitan area.31 It is
at this time that the importance of political power becomes a realization to many people. In
order the stop the financially powerful real estate companies, industrial, and commercial
organizations from leveraging too much weight politically, it became evident to the homeowners
that it was their responsibility to protect themselves by controlling the power that was able to

29 Ibid. 852
30 Fischel, And Economic History, 1.
31 Fischel, An Economic History, 13.
12

pass legislation. As I mentioned earlier this is because the chief investment of the average
American is their home. They do not have the capital that larger corporations, conglomerates,
investment groups, or wealthy investors have. So it becomes the chief importance of all of the
homeowners in these areas to band together so they can protect their homestead. While not
entirely politically or economically powerful on their own, banded together in a group forming
political alliances allowed these neighborhood associations to create and utilize their new found
political capital. This was especially important in a time in which new metropolises nationwide
were assuming control and annexes of their neighbors.32 This is significant because in many
places today, to include our areas in question, the homeowners and their political alliances
largely drive the mechanism of politics in their metropolitan areas.
With anything else that is politically driven we see some changes in the practice of
zoning over time. With respect to such practices as exclusionary principles some were allowed
and some were not, meaning they were found unconstitutional. In 1917 there was a challenge
brought before the Supreme Court in Buchanan v. Warley. In another monumental decision, and
long before the civil rights movement, the Supreme Court decided that it was not legal for
municipalities to prohibit African Americans from purchasing property or houses in the city of
Louisville, KY.33 In this case a real estate transaction had been voided due to the requirements of
an ordinance designed to limit African Americans in certain areas of town. The court ruled in
favor of the plaintiff by saying that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it violates the
freedom of contract and due process clauses in the 14th Amendment. In his majority opinion,
32 Ibid. 14
33 Silver, Christopher. "The Racial Origins of Zoning in America." Racial Equality
Tools. January 1, 1997. Accessed December 3, 2014.
http://racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/silverracialoriginsofzoning.pdf. 4.
13

Justice Warren R. Day said "promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare." However, the
Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment "[assured] to the colored race the
enjoyment of all the civil rightsenjoyed by white persons."34 The courts opinion was that
Louisvilles ordinance couldnt be justified and openly violated the rights of African
Americans.35
Some less obvious and equally as pervasive means of exclusion are still in practice today,
and have indeed been upheld by Supreme Court decisions. Much like we saw with the
homeowners movement into the political spectrum we again see their dominance in the
municipal rule making scene. The enactment of rules that limit housing supply and practices that
require large scale developers to jump through more political loop holes such as permitting,
occupancy restrictions, variances, and legal filings (perhaps not in a specifically malicious
nature) to keep undesirable tenants out of specific areas; or in a more benevolent form to
maintain the homogenous make-up of the neighborhood.36 With so many covenants and
restrictions at their disposal communities are able to weave a spider web of bureaucracy that a
parcel of land must meet before it can be sold and or built upon. There are continuing arguments
as to whether these practices are patently exclusionary or if they are benign results of a desire to
preserve the communal make-up. Some scholars such as Serena Williams and Christopher Silver
have argued that in their inherent make up many zoning restrictions seek to keep somebody out,
and it is particularly grievous because the overwhelming affected majority are the
34 "Buchanan v. Warley," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law,
accessed November 25, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1915/1915_33.
35 Ibid.
36 King, Paul E. Exclusionary Zoning and Open Housing: A Brief Judicial History
Geographical Review 68, no. 4 (1978): 459-69. Accessed November 19, 2014.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/214217. 460-461.
14

disenfranchised; minorities, disabled persons, the poor, elderly, etc. Still others argue that it is
just an unfortunate circumstance as William A. Fischel states:
Anything that looked like racial zoning was almost never tolerated by the courts. Zoning could,
however, be used to reduce potential contact between races, or between high and low income
people, by the facially-neutral expedient of insisting on large lots and single family homes in
residential districts. Racial anxieties could not, of course, be mentioned in any public document as
a reason for the ordinance. Local officials learned quickly to expunge any such language. And, in
my opinion, the issue for white suburbanites has rarely been race itself. Zoning in Vermont and
New Hampshire, two states with minuscule fractions of racial minorities, does not look much
different from zoning in heterogeneous New York and California. Exclusion is far more an
income-based, class issue.37

Over the course of the years with the exception of blatant and relatively rare occasions
the courts have seemed to fall in line with Mr. Fischels take on land-use policy and rule
promulgation. They too agree that it does not seem like the specific intent of any of these rulemaking bodies to exclude anyone; rather it is an agent of the market and a means to protect
assets. It is outside the courts scope to legislate what a person intends to do with their property.38
While we have seen already that this principle does not always apply to the individual, it is clear
that in the spirit of the greater good, when individuals band together on similar terms the
associations they create wield the power necessary to protect themselves both financially and
legally. As an echo of this time period and the compartmentalization and growth of the
metropolitan entity some areas were able to capitalize over others. In a natural market
movement neighborhoods and municipalities realized that they could drive the make-up of their
areas of influence by finding a way to attract certain businesses. If a business or developer wants
to invest in one area and they are not willing to adjust zoning restrictions or the bureaucratic

37 Fischel, An Economic History, 21-22.


38 Nolon, John R. "Historical Overview of the American Land Use System a
Diagnostic Approach to Evaluating Governmental Land Use Control." Pace University
School of Law. January 1, 2006. Accessed December 3, 2014.
http://lawweb.pace.edu/files/landuse/Land_Use_System.pdf. 24.
15

mechanisms that business finds a waste of time and energy, then they are able to shop their
proposals to other areas.39 This tactic was key in this era (1920-1960) to the economic and
preferred growth of the individual communities that resulted, as Fischel notes, For every suburb
that was dedicated to exclusionary zoning there was a not-too-distant town that was more than
willing to accommodate development.40
VI.

Post-WWII Economy and Sub-urbanism

With the inclusion of the interstate highway system into the mix and the growth of Americas
highways this gave those with automobiles the power to be able to leave the city and inhabit the
suburbs. Now, not only was it possible to commute into the city and live outside if one wanted;
it also became possible to live in the suburb and commute within or to other suburban areas.
Perhaps the key importance that completed the whole change was the fact that only those that
could afford to travel to high paying jobs lived in the suburbs. Poorer people could stay in the
city or they could move to a suburb, but there were already existing zoning restrictions. As the
change was being recognized the zoning restrictions, at one time stop-gaps to preserve space and
large lots, were solidified to avoid large multi-unit complexes going in or to protect from low
income houses being built.41 With the development of new environmental guidelines the current
owners now had a powerful tool in maintaining the large lots and extra green space.42 The result
was the further development of suburban areas, some of which had greatly capitalized from the

39 Fischel, An Economic History, 24.


40 Ibid, 25.
41 Fischel, An Economic History, 22.
42 Ibid. 24
16

movement to attract desirable business to the area.43 The combination of these effects resulted in
the development of the multi-nucleus metropolitan area we recognize today.
Once again arose a multitude of unintended consequences. In many cases the objective was not
to degrade any other area, but rather to attract tools of the economy that would drive the influx of
money into ones own municipality. One of these results was the development (or lack thereof)
of the center of the metropolitan district. A byproduct of the suburban movement was the
exclusion certain groups. While on the outset it may not seem like the exclusion of these groups
was on purpose, however, the disparity between affluent areas perpetuated groups that were
already in a questionable position within the American socioeconomic dynamic. These groups
have a tendency to be disproportionately racially segregated. African Americans, Hispanic
Americans, Native Americans, and the uneducated poor were left in the wake. Often times not
having the means to leave the city, or having to live closer to lower wage jobs such as those
found in the industrial sector gave rise to the socioeconomic map that we recognize in many
metropolitan areas today. While this was not a new phenomenon; this movement was greatly
increased by the drastic expansion of the suburban movement throughout the middle of the 20th
century.44
Up for debate, however, is the actual genuineness behind these exclusionary practices. Many
argue that it is not on a class system or goal to exclude but rather behind separation of income.
Disparities in income have by far been the goal of the more affluent to keep those out that may
degrade their sole possession with respect to lifetime investment, the homestead.45 As already
43 Ibid. 24-25
44 King, Exclusionary Zoning, 1.
45 Brener, Belle Terre, 2.
17

evidenced by the other side of the table, if one is to look at zoning practice nationally, it is a
typically homogenous system, ironic because it is what it seeks to perpetuate in the communal
setting.46 The consequences to the poor and already disenfranchised are much greater than
simple segregation through the rules, in some rare cases the zoning guidelines are developed
with a specific intent in mind and the courts uphold judgments clearly designed to exclude
certain groups. I address this specifically with regards to student housing in Austin and the
creation of new zoning restrictions at the behest of the neighborhoods around UT and the
organizations that represent them.
VII.

The Changing CapMetro

While Austin is indeed ad the epicenter of conversations regarding the policy of gentrification;
there is also an important conversation developing regarding the housing policies in the Central
Austin area and the effect it has on the population of students, young professionals, and
developing entrepreneurs. Lets take a look at a framework that has been developed in Austin.
Again, while it is not an incredibly unique situation, Austins demographic change has to be
taken into account with respect to fair housing practices and the development of the housing
issues it has faced as a growing metropolitan area.47 Across the state of Texas there is a
population boom compared to the movement seen throughout the rest of the country. There are a
number of factors that have led to this increase, but that is not the focus of this paper.48 The
reason for this point is that that the movement has largely been towards Texas metropolitan
areas.
46 Fischel, An Economic History, 21-22.
47 Swiatecki, Cover Story.
48 Ibid.
18

Austin has long had a social reputation as a place that people come, but dont leave. Over the
last two decades this sentiment is reflected in the numbers. According to Chad Swiatecki, a Staff
Writer for the Austin Business Journal, this is due to an educated young work force moving for
the open job opportunities that many of the large companies and industries are moving into the
area.49 Another contributor is simply Austins scene. Socially speaking, Austin has always been
a progressive bastion in the conservative sea of red that is the Lone Star State. Aside from the
traditionally younger entrepreuner or new professional, Austin also has a completely diverse
dynamic within this demography. Austin is home to an incredibly large group of young people
that would rather focus on the arts, music, and film economies in the city.50 While these
economies are successful in and of themselves they often produce incomes that are not
consistent. Professionals in industries that focus on staffing, such as Yoany Torres, point out that
these educated people would rather hone their crafts or work on their arts, and as such are much
more willing to accept lower wages in consistent jobs or wage-based service industry jobs that
traditionally dont sustain practices such as home ownership. She says:
(Candidates) here are more educated and lots who come in have degrees but arent demanding
the pay youd normally see with that, so theyre willing to work for $12 an hour, Torres said. I
was surprised when I got here and started seeing the job orders and what employers wanted for
qualifications compared to what they are willing to pay. But a lot of the candidates here are
coming off of jobs waiting tables or theyre involved in things like theater and the arts, and they
just wanted anything that was more stable. Its a different culture.51

Even though Austin prides itself on their vibrant art scene and developing the keep Austin weird
mentality; the homeowners that control the political economy of the city are more interested in
preserving the integrity of their neighborhoods. The University of Texas-Austin is located just
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 Swiatecki, Cover Story.
19

north of the downtown area of Austin. It is very convenient to the political center of the Capitol
complex and the many state buildings located near it. The university is also (perhaps not
conveniently) located in the heart of what has been traditionally considered Central Austin.
Historically, this portion of the city formed what were initially the suburban areas, those areas
located outside of downtown and the political center of the state of Texas. The suburban
neighborhoods can be better understood by looking at a map of the neighborhoods within Austin
and the plethora of names given to relatively small portions of land, when one considers the size
of a traditional metropolitan area. These areas are important because their homeowners and
investors are the stakeholders, and the students and young people that rent in the areas have
everything to lose with zoning changes but no realistic political capital.
Austin has also had a terrible problem in the development of its infrastructure, and with
the increase in population this has meant an increase in the average travel time of those people
living outside of the downtown corridor. The result is property closer to the central hub of the
city is at an incredibly advantageous location, and the price of said property at a premium for
investors and homeowners alike. With some indexes putting Austin as the fourth worst traffic
per capita in the nation this makes traveling not only cost ineffective (as we have seen
historically) for some populations, but also increasingly time ineffective for anyone needing to
travel into the city. For students this concept generally does not fall in-line with social norms of
behavior (i.e. preparedness for travel time to and from class). Additionally, as we have
highlighted, it presents a cost issue for any financial outlier to be able to responsibly travel on a
daily basis with respect to both time and money costs. The underlying result is an influx into the
areas that immediately surround downtown by new earners and students alike.
VIII. Lawrence V. Texas
20

These areas however are not typical homogenous suburban areas. Rather, they are dotted
throughout with multi-familial developments old and new as well as single family homes and
large investment houses with the sole purpose of being leased to students. These communities
are home to students, established residents, single families, and young professionals alike. Rent
prices across the board for those who do not own property are on the rise. This is not an
independent problem, as the availability of homes for sale is decreasing. A recipe for disaster for
young families and young professionals looking to become new homeowners. While the median
home price is not equivalent to the prices we see in some other areas of the nation such as
California, New York, or the northeast; they are higher with respect to cost and median income.52
Not only are there people that cannot afford to purchase a home in the city, but also that those
who can afford to make that purchase are going to work harder to protect that investment from
any encroachment they deem dangerous. It is plausible that those individuals that use to
complain and fight for the rights of student lessors will become their adversary.
In areas north of campus to 51st street, west to Lake Austin, and increasingly east on the east side
of Interstate-35 homeowners are not necessarily new. In some cases the houses have been passed
down through generations, and the ones that are available have a higher price tag than the
average metropolitan home price. This mix of new money and the established stakeholders
have amalgamated to create a power that is increasing in political clout throughout the city. Over
the last 30 years and increasingly over the last decade this increased power has been utilized to
change the shape in which entire neighborhoods have developed and created or changed
regulations that those people that live in them must abide by. This is not uncharacteristic from

52 Swiatecki, Cover Story.


21

the mobilization that developed in other cases or neighborhoods.53 The development of a type of
coalition to defend their property against damage from external parties is a common theme in the
creation of land-use ordinances and zoning policies.54 The progression to the current changes the
City of Austin has taken has followed that of other zoning practices many other cities in this
country and state have taken.55 Perhaps even more remarkable is the time that Austin took to
reach the current state it finds itself.56
Zoning restriction aimed at controlling or corralling the effect of college populations in cities and
townships are prevalent nationwide and began with the Supreme Court upholding the regulations
instituted by the Village of Belle Terre, New York.57 Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas was a case
that had major national implications regarding zoning policies that appeared to unfairly target
students.58 Belle Terre, New York is an affluent neighborhood in upstate New York that was
located near NYU-Stoney Brook. Six attendees of the college lived together in a house that was
owned within the village. The city passed a number of ordinances that had the desired intent of
controlling what could be done within it. As a result the students, and perhaps more importantly,
the owner were found to be in violation of these restrictions. The ordinance stipulated that there
should be no more than two unrelated individuals able to live together in a single-family
residence. That is because the ordinance regulated that a family could only be described as 2
53 Fischel, An Economic History, 24.
54 Ibid.
55 Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas.
56 Stop Stealth Dorms Background.
57 Brener, Belle Terre, 479.
58 Ibid.
22

unrelated individuals not linked by marriage able to constitute a family. Those people were
recognized as people who lived and cooked together.59 The plaintiffs argued that the ordinance
was conceived specifically with the intent of targeting the students on five principles:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

It barred people who were seen to be different (students vs. stakeholders)


The governments claimed interest to social homogeneity was illegitimate
It violated right to privacy
The municipality shouldnt have any interest towards marital status
The regulations flew in the face of the national ideal of an egalitarian society60

The Supreme Court used the policy of precedent and the Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. The high
court decided that deference to the legislative bodies that create zoning ordinance should be
granted because they have the best interest of the stakeholders involved at mind. They also said
that it is the zoning boards responsibility to develop ordinances that are in accordance with the
manner of life style that is being conducted in the community.61 Again, echoing back to the
precedent set in Euclid that the overall goal should be a homogeneous neighborhood with the
fellow-homeowners best interest at the fore. This is also a sentiment back to laws that affected
other types of property ownership that deemed the publics greater good will be defended the
majority of the time. Justice Thurgood Marshall issued the dissention. While he did say that the
municipalities to care for their citizens through the use of zoning restrictions. That does not
mean an abdication, he continues, Court has an obligation to ensure that zoning ordinances,
even when adopted in furtherance of . . . legitimate aims, do not infringe upon fundamental
constitutional rights.62 Essentially, he questioned at what point the governments objective is,
59 Dunski, Make Way, 853-854.
60 Ibid. 854
61 Ibid. 855
62 Dunski, Make Way, 855.
23

and opened for the argument that the government needs to be very careful in what it can and does
regulate.
IX.

A Case for the Homeowner

The citizens in the campus area of Austin have had problems throughout the years with an
increase in the amount of students living off campus.63 In recent years these homeowners have
worked together to help control the spread of the students and limit the uses that investors have
to create what are known as stealth dorms.64 These so-called stealth dorms are large single
family dwellings that have been used or created to allow for a large amount of students to live in
them. This intermingling of students and stakeholders in the neighborhood creates an imbalance
of intentions with respect to the care of the neighborhood as a whole. As the student population
in these areas grows, so too does the population of inhabitants that do not have the same amount
of respect for the areas in which they live because there is no tangible financial investment, such
as that of a homeowner or investor.65 In many cases there is no financial investment due to the
fact that parents are allowed to take the financial burden of responsibility as well as often times
paying the rent. The result, the homeowners claim, is an increase in pollution physically, noise
pollution, and a general degradation of the desired lifestyle of the neighborhoods.66 An upsurge
in the amount of criminal behavior, and in many cases a rise in the potential for dangerous
activities. These neighborhoods are just that; they are places that the invested stakeholders live
63 What Other College Communities Have Done, 1.
64 Stop Stealth Dorms. Background
65 Ibid. Background
66 Austin City Council. Single Family Regulations Task Force. Report Regarding
Occupancy Issues in Single-Family Zoned Areas. Austin, TX. 2007.
24

so they can raise families. They have argued that the students that inhabit these small
neighborhoods are in direct opposition to the accomplishment of this goal.
Much like the development of zoning regulations throughout the United States; the city of Austin
and these small areas near campus have also undergone their own progressive march towards the
current standard. Even as other incorporated cities such as San Marcos, Bryan, and Lubbock
have had instituted standards limiting unrelated occupants; Austin had not. They were largely
unregulated until 2004.67 At that time the City of Austin amended its zoning guidelines to limit
occupancy to no more than six unrelated individuals in the same unit, duplex, or dually divided
lot, small lot or large lot. College Town Life: Occupancy Limits, Appendix A, shows that six
individuals is quite higher than any other regulated city in the state of Texas and most of the
other college towns on the list as compiled by the City of Williamsburg, Virginia.68
Ordinance No. 20140320-062, Appendix B, is the new zoning that was passed in March of
2014. This rule determined that the areas in question (about 15 zip codes surrounding the
University of Texas) should have no more than 4 unrelated occupants on a number of different
type of lots unless the building was built or had obtained a permit to build prior to March 31,
2014, a term commonly known as grandfathering.69
While the zoning in Austin has been progressive, concerning the traditional lack of oversight, the
current homeowners argue that there is still more to be done. As seen in Appendix A there is not
67 College Town Life-Occupancy Limits. January 31, 2008. Accessed December 3,
2014. http://www.williamsburgva.gov/Index.aspx?page=689.
68 Ibid. 1-13
69 "Zoning | Planning | AustinTexas.gov - The Official Website of the City of Austin."
Zoning | Planning | AustinTexas.gov - The Official Website of the City of Austin.
January 1, 2014. Accessed December 3, 2014.
http://www.austintexas.gov/department/zoning.
25

a regulation, as of 2008, anywhere in the state that requires a rental residence to register for any
kind of licensing.70 It should be noted that this is not a surprising fact considering the lack of
regulation for many industries within the state. Even though cities and towns throughout Texas
have land-use regulations and strict zoning guidelines; it has never been a state that is keen
government oversight with regards to certain types of licensing practices. Perhaps the thought
behind the pressure of a rental license is that it would deter would be investors (many of whom
live out of state) from purchasing houses with the sole intent of renting the property as an
investment property.
The introduction of investors with the intent of leasing is not a new practice in any city by any
stretch. However, with the rental market and rates as high as they are in Austin and the ability to
buy housing and lease it to multiple lessors the opportunity to turn single-family lots, houses, or
duplexes into cash investments is a lucrative practice. A practice that is highly frowned upon by
the current homeowners in the areas in question. Even with the housing limit at four unrelated
individuals, because of the grandfather clauses to both of the most recent ordinances the ability
to lease many of these properties as-is is a viable option.
X.

A Case for the Investors and Their Representation

In the history of American ordinance practices the legislation that is always taken at issue
is the ability of the legislative bodies defining said ordinances ability to curtail the uses that an
individual may have.71 Those who took case with the city of Austin and their infringed-upon
rules in this instance were the investors and the people who represented their behalf in business
matters (typically listing agents also known as Real Estate Agents or Realtors if they possess
70 College Town Life::Occupancy Limits, 1-13
71 "Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
26

such credentials), as well as some students (provided they were aware of the issue). The
investors argued simply the same as many of their legal predecessors, that the highest and best
use of their land and the property therein was that of a financial machine. The sole intent of the
purchase was to produce viable investment income and without that possibility through
ordinance practices the highest and best use of their property had been damaged.
The Austin Board of Realtors (ABoR) still maintains a moderate stance on the practice of
high occupant housing in the campus area. As it stands ABoR is a political action committee
dedicated to the protection of the rights of its constituents (Realtors in the Austin area), and as
such finds itself in a difficult conundrum.72 As a licensed Real Estate Agent in the state of Texas
one must provide the highest service to their clients. In some cases this means that the best
service to past and future clients is to protect the interest of the homestead, whereas in other
cases this best service is to protect the investment of a client regardless of the interest their client
possesses in the neighborhood that their asset resides. According the ABoR website it is in their
best interest to act as a sort of mediator in potential upcoming discussions, and especially with
any potential impact on the issue of stealth dorms or housing in the campus areas.73
XI.

A Case for the Students

The final stakeholder in the process with perhaps the least amount of power, money, and
political clout is the renter. The student, young professional, or even perhaps low income earner
that desires the ability to live in a sought after area for an affordable price. It has been noted by
many sources from stakeholders themselves, politicians on both sides of the debate, periodicals,
72 "Local Property Issues Subcommittee." Government Affairs. January 1, 2014.
Accessed November 11, 2014. https://www.abor.com/gov_affairs/LPI.cfm.
73 Local Property Issues Subcommittee. Government Affairs
27

and notable business professionals around the Austin area that affordability in the greater-Austin
area is diminishing at an astonishing rate.74 For the purposes of this examination I will continue
with a greater focus on the student-renter. The Daily Texan (a University of Texas produced
newspaper) has reported directly on the housing crisis in the campus area and its political
implications. City Councilmember Mike Martinez of Austin has noted that due to the lack of
student voter turnout they have not properly voiced their political opinion on the matter of
affordable housing. However, each year as rental prices increase with demand there is an
increase in the complaints of both renters and their guarantors (parents) alike that the housing in
Austin and for UT is becoming less realistic and affordable.75
According the University of Texas the most recent acceptance rate of students includes
9% from out of state and international domains and 71% of students from the top 10% of their
graduating classes. While both numbers are remarkable with regards to the amount spent on
higher education, the top 10% should be noted because it is a state mandated policy. As a rule
the top 10% of each graduating class must be accepted to state funded colleges to which they
apply.76 The University of Texas is by no means a school that is attended by people without
means, but in the grand scheme it does accept a large number of applicants that come to Austin
from families that do not make what would be considered on par with the standard of living at in
74 Grattan, Robert. "Debate Roils over Austin's Affordability, 'stealth Dorms'" Austin
Business Journal, February 12, 2014.
75 Wang, Jackie. "Mayoral Candidates Debate Transportation, Housing in on Campus
Debate." The Daily Texan, October 21, 2014. Accessed November 19, 2014.
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2014/10/20/mayoral-candidates-debate-on-campus.

76 "Enrollment by Semester and Gender." The University of Texas at Austin Office of


Information Management and Analysis. November 9, 2014. Accessed November 9, 2014.
https://sp.austin.utexas.edu/sites/ut/rpt/Documents/IMA_S_EnrlSemGen_2013_Fall.pdf.

28

the city of Austin. This coupled with the numbers that I addressed at the beginning of the paper
in the average cost to live on campus causes students to have to search elsewhere for affordable
options. Elsewhere simply defined is off campus. Areas such as Riverside and Far West or
North Austin offer an affordability to students that desire to spend less. And the transportation
time to and from class for those that choose to live north and west of campus on private or public
transportation is far too time consuming that any college student wants to spend in transit. The
result is that the most affordable areas for students or families that do not have the means to live
closer to campus have to detract from the ideal setting that the university campus affords.
In the past decade the area west of campus has been overwhelmed by the addition of
several multi-family complexes following the passage of an ordinance change that allowed
buildings to be built larger than three stories. This in many cases for the homeowners in north
campus has been a tradeoff so long as those developments and the ordinance restrictions that
allow them do not encroach on their areas. However, the increase in the allowed attendance at
universities across the nation, to include UT, have resulted in an increasing demand of affordable
housing, regardless of the increasing supply of west campus housing. As mentioned before,
the student housing has also felt the pressures of the growing population of entrepreneurs and
young professionals. The bottom line for the students and renters is that they will continue to
feel an increase in the unaffordability of living in Central Austin.77
The chaos, in the eyes of the stakeholders, that has ensued has been the influx of students
pressured by themselves and also their parents to keep college expenditures low. What this
means in some cases is 4 people to a two bedroom house, 6 or more to a 3 bedroom house, and

77 "Affordability Impact Statement." February 13, 2014. Accessed December 4,


2014. http://media.bizj.us/view/img/1953931/aisoccupancy.pdf.
29

so on. The result is what is known as stealth dorm. The largest detractors from the
neighborhood have been those developments that have had the largest number of large bedrooms
because the students can get more out of their dollar by getting more into the property. In some
cases there are two 6 bedroom units on the same large single-family lot. That allows for at a
minimum of 12 occupants on one large single-family lot depending on when it was built.
Because the ordinances are established on a tiered system by the time they were enacted and
their application based on types of properties and the lots on which they sit; it is confusing for
the average tenant or homeowner to know which properties are violating the rules. For the most
part, this becomes extremely difficult with regards to code enforcement and implementation of
the city zoning rules.78
In terms of the traditional familial make-up, Austin is a progressive city in a tolerant
nation. As such, there are scenarios when a non-traditional family can be the recipients negative
outcomes of legislation intended to protect the homogenous make-up of a neighborhood seeking
protection from the incursion of migrant occupants. Due to the fall out of court cases similar to
Lawrence v. Texas it is now possible to challenge or at least target and identify flawed zoning
practices that prohibit certain people wishing to cohabitate.79 The case confronted some issues
within it that are central to the issues present in the Euclid and Belle Terre. In his dissention in
the Belle Terre case justice Thurgood Marshall asserts that it is not the goal of a zoning board to
determine who or what a family is or how people choose to live with each other:

78 "Stealth Dorms in Northfield Neighborhood Executive Summary." Northfield


Neighborhood Association. February 3, 2011. Accessed December 4, 2014.
http://www.northfieldna.org/StealthDormsinNorthfieldNeighborhood.pdf.
79 Dunski, Make Way, 857-859
30

"It is inconceivable to me that we would allow the exercise of the zoning power [established in a
1926 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Euclid v. Ambler Realty] to burden First Amendment freedoms,
as by ordinances that restrict occupancy to individuals adhering to particular religious, political, or
scientific beliefs. Zoning officials properly concern themselves with the uses of landwith, for
example, the number and kind of dwellings. But zoning authorities cannot validly consider who
those persons are, what they believe, or how they choose to live, whether they are Negro or white,
Catholic or Jew, Republican or Democrat, married or unmarried."80

The court decision was 6-3 in favor of the Village of Belle Terre and the notion of protecting the
homogeneity of the neighborhood structure through zoning guidelines. However, legal precedent
had been set that it is a dangerous practice to exclude people from making life decisions that
every American has the right to make.81 He also argued in his dissention that the legal
institutions that develop zoning rules have the right to issue land-use rules, but not directing the
organization of the family unit, and doing so infringes on first amendment rights protecting
association. He state the government does not have the power to dictate who can and cannot
associate with each other, thus who may live with whom. This opinion is echoed in Lawrence by
the courts saying that Texas sodomy laws violated the fourteenth amendment and the right of
due process by asserting that the arm of law and government protocols may not dictate within the
walls of ones own home what he or she and their partners choose to do. In this case, ruling on
behalf of a homosexual couple and the practices that occur within their dwelling. Justice
Anthony Kennedy said in his Majority Opinion, "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their
private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their
private sexual conduct a crime."82
80 Dunski, Make Way, 855
81 Ibid.
82 Dunski, Make Way, 862.
31

Lawyers that represent the rights of real estate agents and their investors (and by proxy
the students) have argued positions that fall in line with Kennedys and Marshalls opinions.
Their claim is that these principles give credence to the idea that these policies that have
developed based solely on the stealth dorm creation work to directly target the students and the
investors that buy the properties that they live in in a negative manner. These sentiments were
brought by the representatives of the campus area agents and their investors at the March
meeting that determined the policies and their potential effectiveness. Another key argument that
is more arbitrary (and I challenge not as important) is the actual enforceability of the ordinance.
Because of the land-use rubrics developed in the post-Euclidian zoning standards, such
requirements such as people per square-foot, ratio of bathrooms to bedrooms, and actual use of
the plots of land are established to legally define how neighborhoods are created without using
blatant exclusionary policies. These rules coupled with the overstretched budget and number of
code enforcers makes code monitoring inherently difficult.83
XII.

Conclusion

The city of Austin is at a crossroads because of the population increase and the number of
what I have defined as migrant occupants young professionals and more importantly the
student population of the University of Texas have expanded from the confines of university
housing and large corporate apartments to find a financial haven by living in investor-owned
properties. In many cases these homes are large properties, or they are properties that may be
smaller in number of bedrooms but large enough to occupy larger groups of roommates that wish
to cohabitate in order to diminish costs of education. The stakeholders of these areas and their
representatives have successfully promoted legislation that has been effective in lowering the
83 Fischel, An Economic History, 5-10.
32

amount of people that can cohabitate within them. The attitude of these migrant occupants has
been cited as non-conformist to the standard of living that the homeowners in their respective
neighborhoods.84 At the heart of the issue is the maintenance of rights both individually and
collectively. As we have seen nationally the installation of rules and regulations designed to
maintain the homogenous neighborhood structure. The zoning restrictions have been upheld
time and time again in the courts with the pressure on the courts to ensure that property values
are not diminished. In the case of Austin the detractors are the students of the University of
Texas.
Zoning rules at best help to produce and maintain the collective desire of homogeneity by
many home-owners in the city of Austin, and newly formed regulations are being instituted to
help with perceived nuisance issues around the University of Texas-Austin. The creation and
usage of so-called stealth dorms in the north campus areas known as Hyde Park and the
attitude of the migrant occupants that live in them have been severely detrimental to the cohesion
of lessors and homeowners, and the relationship between both parties. Investors of the stealth
dorms have argued that they have a right to lease their properties to whom they please for
whatever amount they please, and the students at the university have argued that they have a
right to maintain reasonable housing rates through cohabitation.
Instead of zoning restrictions the city of Austin should utilize other tactics such as stricter
nuisance policies that incorporate the price of implementation into fine paid for violation. The
result would be more punishing debts owed by violators or their parents as well as
supplementing the cost of the police forces time used to respond to disturbances. The city can
also impose rules that focus on punishing the owner-investor and their representatives
84 Northfield Neighborhood Association, Stealth Dorms, 1-10.
33

(management and leasing companies) to pressure these actors into ensuring that tenants are of the
highest possible quality to the surrounding areas of the properties. The city or the state funds of
the University of Texas could also be utilized to buy condemned properties in the affected areas
and refurbish the property to the caliber of the surrounding neighborhood. These homes usually
sit with unrecovered financial losses that hurt the city of Austin as well as being unsightly to
those who live around them. These refurbished homes could then be left to management
companies in the area to lease out at a competitive rate to students and then sold once assets are
recovered on the open market. Stronger eviction policies, and the ability of the state to properly
prosecute poor lessors can be put in place as well. All of these ideas are aimed at controlling the
nuisance created by stealth dorms without limiting the opportunity for students to mitigate
educational financing through home sharing. In the end it is the responsibility of all parties
involved to continue the conversation and work towards practices that benefit both sides while
excluding as few people as possible from the opportunity to own or rent properties at an
affordable rate.

Works Cited
"Affordability Impact Statement." February 13, 2014. Accessed December 4, 2014.
http://media.bizj.us/view/img/1953931/aisoccupancy.pdf.
"As Austin Occupancy Limit Hearing Nears Council, Affordability Issues Loom - Austin
Business Journal." Widgets RSS. February 12, 2014. Accessed December 4, 2014.
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/at-the-watercooler/2014/02/debate-roils-overaustins-affordability-stealth.html?page=all.
34

"Average Cost of Four-year University up 15%." USATODAY.COM. June 13, 2012. Accessed
December 4, 2014. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-0613/college-costs-surge/55568278/1.
Austin City Council. Single Family Regulations Task Force. Report Regarding Occupancy
Issues in Single-Family Zoned Areas. Austin, TX. 2007.
Brener, Katia. "Belle Terre and Single-Family Home Ordinances: Judicial Perceptions of Local
Government and the Presumption of Validity" NYU Law Review 74, no. 447 (1999):
447-84. Accessed November 19, 2014.
http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-74-2-Brener.pdf.
"Buchanan v. Warley," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed
November 25, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1915/1915_33.
Central Austin Community Development Corporation. What Other College Communities Have
Done: Examples of Regulatory Actions to Preserve the Single-Family, Residential
Character of a Campus Neighborhood. Regulatory Actions to Preserve Campus
Neighborhoods. 2005. Austin, TX.
Cervero, Robert, and Michael Duncan. "Neighbourhood Composition And Residential Land
Prices: Does Exclusion Raise or Lower Values?" Urban Studies 41, no. 2 (2004): 299315.
Cockey, Robin. "Where Left Meets Right: A Case Study in Class-Based Economic
Discrimination in Salisbury, MD." University of Maryland Law Journal of Race,
Religion, Gender and Class 3, no. 1 (2003): 71-97. Accessed November 10, 2014.
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1036&context=rrgc.

35

"College Affordability and Completion: Ensuring a Pathway to Opportunity." U.S. Department


of Education. January 1, 2014. Accessed November 19, 2014.
http://www.ed.gov/college.
College Costs - 2014-2015 - Public Universities. January 1, 2014. Accessed November 13, 2014.
file:///C:/Users/owner1/Desktop/Fall 2014/POSI 5350/Paper PDFs/College for All
Texans College Costs.htm.
College Town Life-Occupancy Limits. January 31, 2008. Accessed December 3, 2014.
http://www.williamsburgva.gov/Index.aspx?page=689.
"Cost of College Degree in U.S. Soars 12 Fold: Chart of the Day." Bloomberg.com. August 15,
2012. Accessed December 4, 2014. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/costof-college-degree-in-u-s-soars-12-fold-chart-of-the-day.html.
Diem, Vincent. "Transient Housing And Overcrowding: What Are the Costs?" Public
Management 90, no. 3 (2008): 22-26.
Durden, Teri D., Code Violations and Other Blight Indicators: a Study of Colony Park/Lakeside
(Austin, TX). (Masters thesis, University of Texas-Austin), 1-62.
Dunski, Sarah. "Make Way for the New Kids on the Block: The Possible Zoning Implications of
Lawrence v. Kansas." University of Illinois Law Review 2005, no. 3 (2005): 847-72.
Accessed November 14, 2014. http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilrcontent/articles/2005/3/Dunski.pdf.
Ellickson, Robert. "Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants, Nuisance Rules, and Fines as Land Use
Controls." The University of Chicago Law Review 40, no. 4 (1973): 681-781. Accessed
November 14, 2014. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1470&context=fss_papers.

36

"Enrollment by Semester and Gender." The University of Texas at Austin Office of Information
Management and Analysis. November 9, 2014. Accessed November 9, 2014.
https://sp.austin.utexas.edu/sites/ut/rpt/Documents/IMA_S_EnrlSemGen_2013_Fall.pdf.
"Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed
November 25, 2014 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1925/1925_31.
Fischel, William. "An Economic History of Zoning and a Cure for Its Exclusionary Effects."
Dartmouth College. December 18, 2001. Accessed December 3, 2014.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/02-03.pdf.
Grattan, Robert. "Debate Roils over Austin's Affordability, 'stealth Dorms'" Austin Business
Journal, February 12, 2014.
Hennigan, Gregg. "Iowa City to Consider Zoning Changes in University Neighborhoods." The
Gazette, February 15, 2012. Accessed November 14, 2014.
http://libproxy.txstate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=pwh&AN=2W6680379798&site=eds-live&scope=site.
Jamrisko, Michelle. "Cost of College Degree in U.S. Soars 12 Fold: Chart of the Day."
Bloomberg.com. August 15, 2012. Accessed November 19, 2014.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/cost-of-college-degree-in-u-s-soars-12fold-chart-of-the-day.html.
Kens, Paul A. "Lochner v. New York: Tradition or Change in Constitutional Law?" NYU Journal
of Law and Liberty 1, no. 1 (2005): 404-31. Accessed November 19, 2014.
http://migration.nyulaw.me/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060903.pdf.
King, Paul E. Exclusionary Zoning and Open Housing: A Brief Judicial History Geographical

37

Review 68, no. 4 (1978): 459-69. Accessed November 19, 2014.


http://www.jstor.org/stable/214217.
Laidley, Thomas M. "The Privatization of College Housing: Poverty, Affordability, and the U.S.
Public University." Housing Policy Debate 24, no. 4 (2014): 751-68.
"Local Property Issues Subcommittee." Government Affairs. January 1, 2014. Accessed
November 11, 2014. https://www.abor.com/gov_affairs/LPI.cfm.
Max, Leaman. "Central Austin, Texas." Maps of Austin Neighborhood Maps of Austin Texas.
January 1, 2014. Accessed November 19, 2014. https://www.mapsofaustin.com/centralaustin-map.
National Center of Education Statistics. 2013. Accessed November 19, 2014.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98.
Nolon, John R. "Historical Overview of the American Land Use System a Diagnostic Approach
to Evaluating Governmental Land Use Control." Pace University School of Law.
January 1, 2006. Accessed December 3, 2014.
http://lawweb.pace.edu/files/landuse/Land_Use_System.pdf.
"Stop Stealth Dorms." Stop Stealth Dorms. 2014. Accessed November 19, 2014.
http://stopstealthdorms.com/.
Silver, Christopher. "The Racial Origins of Zoning in America." Racial Equality Tools. January
1, 1997. Accessed December 3, 2014.
http://racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/silverracialoriginsofzoning.pdf.
Stahl, Kenneth A. "Neighborhood Empowerment and the Future of the City." Sabra Brier, MI.
March 7, 2012. Accessed December 4, 2014. http://sabrabriere.org/Neighborhood
Empowerment.pdf.

38

"Stealth Dorms in Northfield Neighborhood Executive Summary." Northfield Neighborhood


Association. February 3, 2011. Accessed December 4, 2014.
http://www.northfieldna.org/StealthDormsinNorthfieldNeighborhood.pdf.
Swiatecki, Chad. "Cover Story: The Incredible Shrinking Dollar in Austin." Austin Business
Journal, 2013. Accessed November 19, 2014. http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/printedition/2013/11/08/austin-cant-afford-this-home.html?page=all.
Tang, Eric, and Chunhui Ren. "Outlier: The Case of Austin's Declining African-American
Population." The University of Texas. May 8, 2014. Accessed December 4, 2014.
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/insts/iupra/_files/pdf/Austin AA pop policy
brief_FINAL.pdf.
"THECB - Report Center." THECB - Report Center. November 19, 2014. Accessed November
19, 2014. http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/DocFetch.cfm?DocID=3243.
"The University of Texas at Austin." Why UT? January 1, 2014. Accessed November 19, 2014.
http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/whyut.
"Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law,
accessed November 25, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/19701979/1973/1973_73_191.
Wang, Jackie. "Mayoral Candidates Debate Transportation, Housing in on Campus Debate." The
Daily Texan, October 21, 2014. Accessed November 19, 2014.
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2014/10/20/mayoral-candidates-debate-on-campus.
Williams, Serena M. "The Need for Affordable Housing: The Constitutional Viability of
Inclusionary Zoning." John Marshall Law Review 26, no. 1 (1992): 75-104. Accessed
November 10, 2014. http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

39

article=1818&context=lawreview.
"Zoning | Planning | AustinTexas.gov - The Official Website of the City of Austin."
Zoning | Planning | AustinTexas.gov - The Official Website of the City of Austin. January 1,
2014. Accessed December 3, 2014. http://www.austintexas.gov/department/zoning.

40