Table of Contents
.jpg%3Ftable%3Dblock%26id%3Df2a105ca-4bee-44ac-908b-064b7e2f392c%26cache%3Dv2&optimizer=image&quality=80&width=280)
Do not index
Do not index
Read the article at the Montana Free Press by Eric Dietrich
Excerpt
“A Gallatin County District Court judge has blocked two laws passed by the 2023 Montana Legislature that aimed to promote housing affordability by forcing cities to permit denser development in existing neighborhoods.
The Dec. 29 order, by Judge Mike Salvagni, prevented the two laws from taking effect as scheduled on Jan. 1 while litigation of a legal challenge filed by a Bozeman-based homeowners group last month proceeds. The order doesn’t change the status of two other laws that are also challenged by the same lawsuit, including one that broadly reworks the state’s land use planning statute in an effort to focus resident input on high-level planning discussions and make it harder for not-in-my-backyard-style opposition to derail projects that comply with existing growth plans.
The two blocked laws are Senate Bill 323, which would require cities with 5,000 residents or more to allow duplex housing on any home lot, and Senate Bill 528, which would require cities to adopt regulations allowing more construction of accessory dwelling units, or secondary housing structures that share parcels with larger homes…
“…Kelly Lynch, executive director of the Montana League of Cities and Towns, drew a distinction in an interview between the Land Use Planning Act, which she said her organization had been working to develop for years, and the other three bills, which city governments had generally opposed as legislative mandates that they regarded as preempting local control.
“These are really, really complicated issues — and that’s why they are best dealt with, in detail, through the community process and through local elected officials,” she said.
Lynch noted that some Montana municipalities have already adopted local ordinances intended to comply with the new laws. Others, such as Bozeman, are considering such measures.
While the Land Use Planning Act wasn’t enjoined by his order, Salvagni did endorse MAID’s criticisms of it, signaling that the law could be vulnerable to a later ruling…”
.jpg&optimizer=image&quality=80&width=280)