New Report Finds State Land-Use Intervention Can Keep Local Government Accountable

New Hampshire’s Housing Appeals Board is a helpful model that ensures projects will not be vetoed unnecessarily

NEW YORK, NY — For decades, courts have promised to intervene when local governments overstep their bounds in land-use regulation; yet their efforts have consistently fallen flat. When local governments are left to themselves, they sometimes use unfettered discretion to unfairly stall development. New Hampshire’s Housing Appeals Board (HAB) offers an innovative solution that encourages greater transparency from local governments. In a new Manhattan Institute (MI) report, part of MI’s urban policy series, Brian Chen explains the structure of HAB and finds it can be a useful model for other states to implement.

HAB strikes a balance between local control and statewide interests by acting primarily as a procedural intervention without relying on heavy-handed state mandates. It also solves the key problems with a judicial appeals process: cost, speed, and a lack of expertise. Though HAB has proven successful in New Hampshire so far, Chen proposes some improvements for states looking to emulate the model. States should put additional distance between HAB and the judicial process and relax HAB’s deference to local governments. Proponents should also consider whether a judicial selection process is necessary to assemble a coalition and should opt for gubernational selection if politically viable.

Click here to read the full report.