How Eliminating Single-Family Zoning Can Help in the Fight Against Climate Change
With climate change continuing to destabilize our physical environment, New York State’s government must respond with legislation that effectively combats the primary causes of our energy consumption. One major culprit of greenhouse gas emissions are buildings, which account for nearly 40% of the United States’ energy usage. Because of this, federal, state, and local governments have launched various remedial measures aimed at the development sector. These measures, while necessary, often fail to adequately address the outsized role that buildings play in the climate crisis. New York must begin by addressing the longstanding legal doctrines that impede sustainable development practices.
Given the pervasiveness of the home rule doctrine, and the Supreme Court’s expansion of the regulatory takings doctrine, New York needs to come up with new, creative ways to tackle these longstanding legal doctrines that impede sustainable development practices. The state needs new legislation that can both punish municipalities for failing to comply with the state’s development plans and encourage private citizens to assist in the fight against climate change. Furthermore, as our government implements these innovative and proactive regulations, it must be wary of the legal hurdles that will impede its efforts.
While America’s zoning system receives a great deal of criticism for its pernicious, segregating effects, not enough attention is focused on the environmental damage inflicted by restrictive zoning. Part I, “Identifying the Problem,” attempts to provide a history of restrictive zoning and the Takings Doctrine to highlight the significant influence they have over land-use issues today. Part II, “Environmental Effects,” illustrates the harm that these two legal doctrines have on our environment. Part III, “New York’s Response,” details some of the proactive steps that New York State and New York City have taken in response to the climate crisis, and Part IV, “Proposal,” proposes additional steps that the state should take to remedy single-family zoning, Takings power, and the building industry’s deleterious effect on the environment. By analyzing the history of these legal impediments, and the resultant harm to our environment, this article establishes how New York State can more effectively combat the climate crisis.
Identifying the Problem
Common law has long recognized the right of local communities to challenge the development of certain uses of property that they deem undesirable and a nuisance. In the U.S., municipalities have used this right to prevent the development of alternate energy farms, multi-family homes, and to encourage single-family zoning, with minimum lot sizes. This localized zoning authority comes from the legal concept of “home rule,” whereby cities and municipalities are delegated certain powers by the state government. Similarly, land-use protections are also offered to homeowners through the Takings Clause. This clause requires the government to provide property owners with “just compensation” if they take private property for public use. By analyzing the history of local zoning authority and the judiciary’s recent expansion of the Takings Clause, this article will show how the “American Dream,” exemplified by large-lot, single-family homes, contributes to the impending climate crisis.
History of Local Authority
The seminal home rule case is Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. In Euclid, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments can utilize their “police power” to implement zoning ordinances preventing “the erection of a building of a particular kind or for a particular use,” so long as the ordinance serves the public’s best interest. The case also established the now-customary requirement that zoning ordinances must bear a “substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.”The effect of this decision was to establish America’s newly developed suburbs as predominantly populated with single-family homes that possessed the power to prevent the development of any multi-family dwellings, including apartments, duplexes, and additional dwelling units.
In the wake of Euclid’s expansion of the government’s role in land-use decisions, the nature and degree of the government’s authority became an open issue. State officials were left scrambling to determine how and by whom this governmental “police power” could be exercised. The U.S. Department of Commerce responded to this confusion by proposing a model statute called the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act. While acknowledging that the police power resides in state governments, this act advised that zoning authority should be under the authority of local legislatures. The model statute sought to establish a roadmap for local governments to follow when establishing their land-use planning departments. The Standard State Zoning Enabling Act further bolstered local authority by recommending that zoning ordinances be based on a local municipality’s land-use plans, rather than plans from the state government. This derogation allowed zoning decisions to be based specifically on a local population’s well-being, rather than the needs of the entire state’s population. Within five years of Euclid, 35 states had delegated zoning to local governments, and by 1979, all 50 states had done so.
At the time of Euclid and the Zoning Enabling Act, it was commonly believed that density was bad for the environment. In response to the expanding slums of America’s cities, upper-class and upper-middle class Americans fled to the newly developed suburbs in large numbers. Following World War II, and fueled by generous and readily available federal loans, residential development exploded, with undeveloped areas generally taking the form of single-family homes on individual lots. This period of suburbanization created the imprint for America’s “metropolitan sprawl” today. Metropolitan sprawl is low-density development that exists “beyond the outermost boundaries of established cities.” The federal government supported this sprawling, low-density development, both through legislation and financial subsidies, believing it was necessary to regulate the existential threat of density. For example, the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act called on local governments to limit the permitted number of residents per acre, and to establish themselves as single-family residence districts. Local officials obliged, and codified these stratified, troubling development patterns by adopting single-family zoning to preserve them. This legislation, along with the abundance of land in the United States, encouraged a boom of low-density development across the country, and largely restricted multi-family housing to cities.
Prevention of Regulatory Takings
The localized power established in Euclid and the zoning act was complicated in 1992 when the Supreme Court redefined the Takings Clause in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. In Lucas, a South Carolina state law restricting beachfront development, in an attempt to protect the local environment, was found to be a “taking” of a beachfront property owner’s land because it deprived him of the economically beneficial use of his land. Following Lucas, any government regulations that impede a property owner’s use of their land in the interest of a larger social goal is always considered suspect. The effect of the decision is to inhibit a state’s or local municipality’s ability to combat metropolitan sprawl and its environmental consequences. In requiring certain types of developments, governments now run the risk of impeding a property owner’s use of their property, and therein create a Takings violation. States must now consider whether they can afford the potential costs incurred when, for example, implementing an environmental restriction or developing an alternate energy project.
The combined effect of these two decisions has been to establish land-use decision-making at the local level, and to empower landowners to challenge legislation and regulations that have potentially negative economic consequences for their property value. These development trends have the “effect of legally requiring regional sprawl.” Residents possess the voting power to pressure their governments into maintaining the status quo of single-family zoning, and the ability to challenge any proposed developments or environmental regulations with Takings Clause claims. Today, 75% of land in American cities is under single-family zoning, and homeowners hold significant power over their governments to maintain this system. As a result of these two decisions, land-use management in the United States has evolved into a “tragedy of the commons.”
For years, the environmental damage caused by single-family zoning and metropolitan sprawl were difficult to quantify. While countless studies showed the detrimental effect that sprawl had on transportation, few combined these effects with the evident energy inefficiency of single-family homes. Evidence now indicates that single-family suburbs contribute significantly greater greenhouse gas emissions per person than cities do. This discrepancy is accounted for by the overall increase in land consumption and consequential reduction in agriculture and species diversity that is required for low-density development. Given that the American population continues to sprawl, the increasing use of low-density, single-family housing presents a grave and existential threat to our environment.
At the outset, it is important to highlight what makes the residential development industry one of the largest culprits of greenhouse gas emissions. Looking exclusively at “upstream generators,” which includes lighting, HVAC systems, refrigeration, cooking, and appliances, it is estimated that residential buildings emit nearly 6% of America’s greenhouse gases. Single-family homes, which require significantly more electricity to heat and cool their environments, are the primary driver of these emissions. The average suburban home produces more than double the emissions of households in multi-family buildings. These figures do not even capture the full extent of emissions produced by residential development, which also include the steel, cement and glass manufacturing required for homebuilding. While it is difficult to calculate the full extent of harm caused by residential development, its detrimental impact on the environment is clear.
Metropolitan sprawl causes additional environmental harm through its resultant reliance on vehicular transport and increased commuting distance. In general, sprawl and low-density housing increases distances between one’s home and one’s work, grocery shopping, recreation and social activities, and access to basic services. Furthermore, when there is a lack of access to public transportation, and it is unsafe to walk or bike, the suburban environment often forces residents to depend on their own cars for transportation. Over the past 30 years, as housing moved further from major cities, the total number of miles traveled by passenger cars and light-duty trucks increased by roughly 46%. Studies often indicate that this mileage increase, and the resultant growth in carbon emissions, is partially attributable to growing metropolitan sprawl.
Local control of land use has helped to both create and further exacerbate these problems. In contrast to the suburbs’ reliance on cars, studies indicate that residents in denser locales drive 25% less than their counterparts. By excluding proposals for denser development and by maintaining the detached single-family income system, municipalities are actively harming the environment. Because each home rule state defines for itself what powers it grants to local governments, it is incumbent upon state governments to act in the best interests of its citizens, reclaim its zoning authority, and begin remedying the environmental damage caused by widespread, restrictive single-family zoning.
New York’s Response
Given New York’s vulnerable coastal location, the threat of climate change is increasingly present. New York City has responded to the crisis with some of the nation’s most progressive sustainable development programs. Though the state has implemented several similar programs that benefit communities committed to green development, the power of private citizens and local governments threatens to impede this progress. While these programs indicate steps toward a greener New York, the state must increase its proactive efforts.
New York State recognizes the way that community development impacts greenhouse gas emissions and has attempted to address these concerns with legislation that both incentivizes municipalities to prioritize sustainability in their land-use plans and punishes communities for failing to comply with certain baseline requirements. This section seeks to provide a history of this legislation, and to show where it stands currently. While New York’s plans are admirable in their scope and their intentions, many of the programs face challenges from local municipalities and private citizens. Until these cases are decided, the impact of these programs remains in question.
In 2009, New York State announced its commitment to reducing its carbon emissions by 80% before 2050. In conjunction with this announcement, the state passed its “keystone smart growth achievement” with the Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act. This act requires state infrastructure agencies to consider a proposed public infrastructure project’s environmental effects before approving and ultimately funding it. The state has since implemented a variety of funding initiatives designed to encourage green development practices among local governments. One such program is the Cleaner Greener Communities Program. At its outset, the program provided an initial $10 million to each of New York’s 10 economic development regions to assist them in developing a sustainability plan for their region. Following this, the state agrees to review each region’s proposed sustainability plan and, if approved, help fund the development of large-scale green projects within these regions. Within the program’s first three years, the state awarded more than $2 billion in funding, creating a variety of mixed-use and transit-oriented development, agricultural infrastructure in rural New York, and historic rehabilitation in downtown areas.
While these programs establish a strong foundation for sustainable growth in New York, they have also been criticized for their limited reach and for eliminating certain procedural hurdles in the development process. The Smart Growth Infrastructure Policy Act, for instance, fails to directly require municipalities to comply with its smart growth strategies and instead seeks to incentivize participation through funding commitments. Furthermore, because the act defers to “local planning priorities,” its legislative influence is dependent upon the quality of plans submitted before it. Despite the act’s intent to “address sprawl by requiring state agencies to approve, undertake and fund infrastructure . . . that is consistent with smart growth principles,” the state continues to fund sprawl-inducing water, sewer, and transportation projects.
Another controversial program has been the creation of the Office of Renewable Energy Siting, which is the review and siting process by which proposed energy projects are approved and begin development. This office seeks to speed up the application and review process for developing power plants from the outdated, slow, bureaucratic Article 10 system that was previously in place. Sustainable development advocates believe the streamlined process will allow the state to switch to clean energy sources, meet its promised reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and stay on pace with former Governor Cuomo’s promise to eliminate carbon emissions from the electrical grid by 2040.
The Office of Renewable Energy Siting has been highly effective, and highly controversial, with several proposed solar and wind farms already in development throughout New York. While the office grants localities some input into its decision-making process, it maintains final say on all project decisions. This final discretion, along with the added expediency, has led a number of citizens and municipalities to contest the validity of the office’s decisions in court. The parties believe that the new, streamlined process impedes upon their home rule authority, and could potentially harm their property values. Countless lawsuits have already occurred on Long Island, with private citizens joining together to halt the development of offshore wind farms. For instance, on Feb. 2, 2021, a group of residents, named the Citizens for the Preservation of Wainscott, sued their own town, town supervisor, and the developer of a proposed wind farm project. They argued that the wind turbines would detrimentally impact the scenic and aesthetic beauty of their beachfront community and posed a grave danger to the well-being of the local citizens.
More recently, in March of 2021, several rural municipalities sued the Office of Renewable Energy Siting, arguing that the expedited process violates the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. This act requires the state “to consider environmental impacts” when taking government action. The lawsuit alleges that the development of wind turbines and solar plants will adversely impact the local environment and that, by the Office of Renewable Energy Siting neglecting to consider these impacts, the agency violated the Environmental Quality Review Act. With this case still ongoing, the impact of the Office of Renewal Energy Siting and its renewable energy plants remains to be seen.
New York City has likewise implemented a variety of city-level programs that are intended to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Most recently, the city enacted the Climate Mobilization Act, which is composed of five separate pieces of legislation. Among other things, the act includes (1) requirements that certain buildings update their roofs to green roofs when performing major roof work, (2) a sustainable energy loan program for homeowners and commercial property owners seeking to convert to alternate energy sources and other applicable sustainable endeavors, and (3) established a city-wide grading system for each building’s energy efficiency. Most important, however, the act contains Local Law 97, which requires buildings larger than 25,000 square feet to report their emissions annually, and imposes fines upon building owners if they exceed their allocated greenhouse gas emissions budget. The fines will be assessed on an annual basis and are calculated based on each metric ton of emissions that exceed the building’s allocated limit. The goal of Local Law 97 is to encourage building owners, through the threat of fines, to improve their building’s heating and cooling systems, and upgrade any energy consuming aspects, such as hot water heaters, roofs, windows, and electric appliances. It could potentially lead property owners to install solar panels and switch to less-polluting energy sources.
While these city programs are admirable in their efforts, their efficacy is often hindered by a reluctance to adopt similar measures at the municipal level. A University of California, Berkeley study indicates that despite cities’ best efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the suburbs outside major cities “essentially wipe out the climate benefits.” With extreme weather events on the rise, and the suburban housing boom that occurred during the pandemic, New York State must begin to address the stifling effects that local governments and litigious citizens have on its environmental efforts.
When viewed in totality, the frequency and scale of these legislative efforts indicates progress toward developing a more sustainable New York. To capitalize on this progress further action is needed at the state level. The state government should look to legislation at the city level, as well as legislation being enacted in other states, for inspiration.
The first step for New York State could be requiring a certain level of energy efficiency for both new and existing developments. While there is concern that mandating certain energy certification levels will lead to litigation from aggrieved developers and homeowners, these plaintiffs will face a high bar. Pursuant to Euclid, a law must be “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable” in order to be deemed unconstitutional. Alleging that LEED or even the state’s own rating system is arbitrary and unreasonable will be difficult, given the widespread acceptance of the LEED rating system, and New York could further protect itself by basing its rating system on clear and objective data. While new construction tends to be more energy efficient by its nature, a statewide, stricter energy code would encourage property owners to replace wasteful appliances and fixtures with more energy-efficient alternatives. New York City already has the Property Assessed Clean Energy program, which provides property owners with financing for renewable energy projects and improving energy efficiency. The state could establish a similar funding program designed to assist New York residents with improvements like added insulation or the installation of energy efficient windows, doors, and HVAC systems. Studies show that a thorough retrofitting of a detached, single-family home could decrease its energy consumption by up to 75%. Encouraging this transition to energy-efficient improvements could provide immense statewide benefits.
Beyond incentivizing property owners with funding, the state could ensure compliance with its new code by imposing strict fines for certain levels of greenhouse gas emissions, akin to Local Law 97. However, while New York City’s Local Law 97 only applies to buildings larger than 25,000 square feet, New York State would need to come up with a way to impose fines on high-energy consuming single-family homes. One way to do so would be to designate municipalities’ acceptable levels of energy consumption, based on the town’s population size. The state could utilize this authority for any municipality that is on a state-subsidized energy provider. It would lead to the imposition of fines upon towns with single-family zoning and minimum lot size requirements and would, through the imposition of fines, encourage these towns to require more energy-efficient, denser developments.
The most effective way for the state to combat climate change would be through legislation that preempts any restrictive ordinances placed by local governments. Whereas statewide planning considers the impact of local legislation and land use on the neighboring communities, and on the state as a whole, a municipality’s plans typically limit their focus on the needs and desires of its own particular community. In order to effectively address the environmental concerns of the whole state, this stratified process must be rectified. Statewide preemption of municipalities is already occurring across a few other states. Twenty-nine states are currently considering bills to preempt all manner of local legislation. Recently, both the state of Oregon and Minneapolis’s City Council voted to overrule single-family zoning in order to allow multi-family housing in areas where it is currently prohibited. Most scholars believe that increased population concentration is one of the key aspects to combating the climate crisis.
New York State is already considering a bill that would ban exclusionary, single-family zoning. The law would allow multi-family developments on almost all residential lots and would stop municipalities from requiring minimum lot size requirements larger than 1,200 square feet. However, the bill would likely be ineffective in the long run. As evidenced by the other states’ efforts to repeal single-family zoning, during the 21st century municipalities have implemented an array of other non-zoning regulations intended to impede single-family residential development. These impediments include stringent construct and siting requirements, timely design and review processes and strict parking requirements. By enacting a bill that preempts local home rule, however, New York State will be able to subvert any number of obstacles existing at the local level and build the high-density development its citizens need. Scholars agree that sustainability is enhanced by high-density development that supports multiple land uses within single communities, in order to encourage walking and public transit usage, and to limit lot and unit sizes to conserve energy in the heating and cooling of residences. By granting itself authority to preempt any local legislation impeding such development, the state could oversee high-density, energy-efficient development across New York State, eliminating the energy consuming burden of single-family homes. While the political effort needed to reverse Home Rule may seem insurmountable, the urgency of climate change leaves the state with no other option.
While the statewide legislation already in place is a step in the right direction, it is incumbent upon our government to move swiftly to preempt all manner of local legislation that harm our environment. Given the evolution of the national discourse around climate change, and the looming threat it poses to a coastal state like New York, it is imperative that our state government minimize the ongoing and increasingly harmful environmental effects of restrictive zoning practices.
Daniel Finnegan graduated with honors from Brooklyn Law School in 2022. He currently works as a law clerk pending admission at Kriss & Feuerstein. This article was the winning entry to the Real Property Law Section Student Writing Competition in 2021 and appears appears in the N.Y. Real Property Law Journal (2022, vol. 50, no. 2). For more information about the Real Property Law Section, please visit NYSBA.ORG/REALPROPERTY
 See U.S. Dep’t of Energy, An Assessment of Energy Technologies & Research Opportunities (Sept. 2015), https://www.eesi.org/topics/built-infrastructure/description.
 See generally Patrick J. Rohan, 1 Zoning and Land Use Controls § 1.02 (LexisNexis, Matthew Bender, 1997) (cataloguing local zoning laws across the nation).
 See, e.g., Kimberley R. Nason & Kevin C. Blake, Local Governments Attempt to Restrict Solar Development with Moratoriums and Restrictive Zoning Ordinances, Earth Matters 11 (2017), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9c07211c-afbf-4b29-9489-5beaceafb01a.
 Vill. of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 388 (1926).
 Id. at 395.
 Id. at 388; see also Robert F. Pecorella, Property Rights, State Police Powers, and the Takings Clause: The Evolution Toward Dysfunctional Land-Use Management, 44 Fordham Urb. L. J. 59, 72 (2017) (hereinafter Pecorella, Dysfunctional Land-Use Management).
 See Michael E. Libonati, The Legislative Branch, at 37-65 (2006); see also Pecorella, Dysfunctional Land-Use Management, at 72–74.
 U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Advisory Committee on Zoning, A Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (1926).
 Id. at 7, 11.
 Id. at 8–9.
 See Ruth Knack et al., The Real Story Behind the Standard Planning and Zoning Acts of the 1920s, Land Use L. & Zoning Dig. 3, 8 (Feb. 1996).
 See Daniel R. Mandelker & Roger A. Cunningham, Planning and Control Of Land Development: Cases And Materials, 217 (1979).
 Pecorella, supra note 6, at 84–88.
 See generally Richard Rothstein, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America (2017).
 Alexander von Hoffman, Single-Family Zoning: Can History Be Reversed?, Joint Ctr. Housing Studies Harv. Univ. (Oct. 5, 2021), https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/single-family-zoning-can-history-be-reversed (hereinafter Hoffman, Single-Family Zoning).
 Lesley R. Attkisson, Putting a Stop to Sprawl: State Intervention as a Tool for Growth Management, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 979, 981 (2009).
 See A Standard State Zoning Enabling Act, supra note 8, at § 1.
 See Hoffman, Single-Family Zoning, supra note 16.
 See Dennis R. Judd & Annika M. Hinze, City Politics 187 (10th ed. 2015) (finding that by “the 1970’s, over 99 percent of undeveloped land zoned residential in the New York region excluded apartments.”).
 Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1019 (1992).
 Pecorella, Dysfunctional Land-Use Management, at 82.
 See Kenneth T. Jackson, Why America Has Gone Suburban, N.Y. Times, June 9, 1996, at 15.
 Devin Edwards, Green Houses and Greenhouse Gases: Why Exclusionary Zoning Is a Climate Catastrophe, Geo. Pub. Pol’y Rev., (Nov. 5, 2019), http://gppreview.com/2019/11/05/green-houses-greenhouse-gases-exclusionary-zoning-climate-catastrophe/ (hereinafter Edwards, Green Houses and Greenhouse Gases).
 See Pecorella, Dysfunctional Land-Use Management, supra note 6, at 89; see also Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, 162 Sci. 1243 (1968).
 Elizabeth La Jeunesse, U.S. Households Are Using Less Energy, Joint Ctr. Housing Studies Harv. Univ. (July 11, 2018), https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/us-households-are-using-less-energy.
 See Robert Parker & Rebecca Lewis, America’s love affair with single-family housing is cooling (but it won’t be a quick breakup), Gov1 (Jan. 3, 2020), https://www.gov1.com/community-development/articles/americas-love-affair-with-single-family-housing-is-cooling-but-it-wont-be-a-quick-breakup-DmU5zPtxh6XfFb8g/.
 Stuart Meck, Growing Smart–Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change, Am. Plan. Ass’n. (Jan. 2002); see Stephen M. Wheeler, Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable, and Ecological Communities 34 (2013); see also Pecorella, Dysfunctional Land-Use Management, supra note 6, at 88.
 Edwards, supra note 24.
 See generally La Jeunesse, supra note 26.
 See Edwards, supra note 24.
 U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2019), https://web.archive.org/web/20190315044025/https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
 See Edwards, supra note 24 (discussing a World Bank study that found “sprawl to be a greater driver of transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions that either population or GDP growth.”).
 See Id., supra note 24 (discussing a University of Maryland study that found “residents in dense places drive 25%, even after controlling for socioeconomic differences.”).
 See David Kay & Zoe McAlear, Integration of Smart Growth into New York State Policy and Programs, Comm. & Regional Dev. Inst. (July 2015), https://wri.cals.cornell.edu/sites/wri.cals.cornell.edu/files/documents/.pdf, (hereinafter Kay & McAlear, Integration of Smart Growth into New York State Policy).
 State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act, Bill Number S5560-B (2010).
 See Kay & McAlear, supra note 37.
 James M. Van Nostrand et al., Taking Action in New York on Climate Change: 2011 Update Report at 16-17 (Pace Law School, 2011); see also N.Y. Env’t Conserv. L. § 6-0107.
 Top 10 Things to Know About New York State’s New Proposed Large-Scale Renewable Project Siting Regulations, JDSupra (2020), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/top-10-things-to-know-about-new-york-65218/.
 See id. (quoting the executives of various clean energy organizations, who view the legislation as having significant potential).
 See Oliver Milman, ‘They aren’t used to losing’: wealthy New York enclave battles over offshore windfarm, TheGuardian (Mar. 17, 2021), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/17/wainscott-new-york-hamptons-offshore-windfarm.
 Brittany Kenny, Rural municipalities, community and conservation groups sue New York State’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting Over 94-C process for siting of industrial solar and wind facilities, Wind-Watch (June 29, 2021), https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2021/06/30/rural-municipalities-community-and-conservation-groups-sue-new-york-states-office-of-renewable-energy-siting-over-94-c-process-for-siting-of-industrial-solar-and-wind-facilities.
 New York City Mayor’s Office for Sustainability, NYC Climate Mobilization Act (2019), https://www1.nyc.gov/site/sustainability/legislation/climate-mobilization-act-2019.page.
 Robert Sanders, Suburban sprawl cancels carbon-footprint savings of dense urban cores, Berkeley News (Jan. 6, 2014), https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels-carbon-footprint-savings-of-dense-urban-cores.
 Conor Dougherty & Ben Casselman, House Hunters Are Leaving the City, and Builders Can’t Keep Up, N.Y. Times (May 29, 2021).
 See supra note 4, at 395.
 See Climate Mobilization Act, N.Y.C. Council 97 (2019), https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3761078&GUID=B938F26C-E9B9-4B9F-B981-1BB2BB52A486.
 See Edwards, supra note 24 (discussing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
 See Barry Cullingworth & Roger W. Caves, Planning in the USA: Policies, Issues and Processes 22-23 (4th ed. 2014).
 Lori Riverstone-Newell, The Rise of State Preemption Laws in Response to Local Policy Innovation, 47 J. of Federalism 403 (2017).
 Hoffman, Single-Family Zoning.
 See Pecorella, supra note 6, at 88.
 Joe Lovinger, New York takes aim at apartment bans, TheRealDeal (Dec. 10, 2021), https://therealdeal.com/2021/12/10/new-york-takes-aim-at-single-family-zoning.
 See Hoffman, supra note 16.
 See Pecorella, supra note 6, at 86–88.