Lyle Solla-YatesReading about Wisconsin's successful 2023 efforts to narrow the scope of who has legal standing to sue to block residential development to those who can prove actual (not "de minimus") harm. Connecticut to my knowledge has not done this nor has Virginia. I suspect none of the 20 states with additional rezoning protest provision language have either. I'm not sure about the rest https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab266 #zoning #litigation #housing
I am inspired by this recent #Mercatus brief that mentions the topic https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/housing-reform-states-menu-options-2026
Housing Reform in the States: A Menu of Options for 2026
Although state legislatures took unprecedented strides toward releasing the housing supply from its regulatory straitjacket in 2025, most pro-housing policies have not yet been adopted in most states.[1] Finishing the work of restoring the right to build housing for everyone will require widespread adoption of best practices.
It looks like Maryland does require special harm: "personally and specially affected in a way different from that suffered by the public generally" https://www.whitefordlaw.com/news-events/court-of-appeals-decision-regarding-standing-in-the-context-of-challenges-to-zon
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP | Court of Appeals Decision Regarding Standing in the Context of Challenges to Zoning Reclassifications, Although Purporting to Disavow Any Bright-Line Test, May Have Established One Nonetheless
Since 1933, clients have come to Whiteford for trusted representation and guidance on issues critical to achieving their business goals.
I see North Carolina requires "special damages" in their standing section https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_160D.html
It appears that California is similar to Virginia, but in a much more confusing and frustrating way. I like this bit: "In practical terms, nearly anyone can sue once a project has been approved." https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=7.&part=&chapter=9.3.&article= #CALeg
Texas has not spelled this out as clearly as I would like, only saying "aggrieved", but per this PDF the TX Supreme Court has defined that to mean "injured or damaged other than as a member of the general public." so still a bit better than CA and VA IMO https://texascityattorneys.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/CleavesMasson_ZBA_Standing.pdf
Andy OrbanThat doesn't sound good "nearly anyone can sue" 😯
@andyorban.bsky.social Yeehaw! ðŸ¤