In a blow to California housing builders the United States Supreme Court chose not to hear an appeal of a San Jose, California requirement for Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ) requiring for-sale housing have set asides priced lower than the market. From a story in the San Jose Business Journal:

San Jose’s mandate that homebuilders either include affordable units in their projects or pay a fee will stand, after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to the law. In a victory for affordable housing advocates and the city of San Jose, the court said it would not hear the appeal of a California Supreme Court ruling last year brought by the Building Industry Association.

This has zero effect on our own Mayor’s proposal for MIZ as part of the Grand Bargain. But an outright rejection of the San Jose law might have helped lend some clarity to legal arguments against the proposal which would add a roughly 10 percent increase to building size all over the city with a 7 percent set aside for rent restricted housing. To be clear, California had been the guide for MIZ schemes all over the country. But the failure of the San Jose case to get a hearing in front of the Supreme Court doesn’t make it any more legal here. In fact, the idea itself of MIZ is perfectly fine in Washington State law provided that there is a value added to projects with an upzone and that participation is voluntary (let’s call it VIZ). So far, there’s nothing in the Bargain that indicates either of these requirements. So knowing your way to San Jose might help clear up some questions about MIZ, but it will be Washington courts that will have to weigh in if the Mayor pushes ahead with his road trip.