Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Housing Policy

The 'Montana Miracle' Vindicated in Court

On Monday, a Montana judge roundly rejected homeowners' legal challenge to new laws allowing duplexes and accessory dwelling units in single-family areas.

Christian Britschgi | 3.4.2025 2:00 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Montana Capitol Building in Helena | Wellesenterprises/Dreamstime.com
(Wellesenterprises/Dreamstime.com)

Happy Tuesday, and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. This week's stories include:

  • One major victory (and one defeat) for private property rights in Montana.
  • DOGE-inspired termination of federal grants to fair housing groups.
  • A new report on the promise of single-stair reforms.

In Montana, One Victory for Private Property Rights…

On Monday, a judge in Gallatin County, Montana, roundly rejected single-family homeowners' legal challenge to a suite of four new zoning and planning reforms passed in 2023 to increase housing production.

The reforms, dubbed the "Montana Miracle", received wide bipartisan support in the Montana Legislature and were enthusiastically championed by Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte.

But they attracted the opposition of some single-family homeowners organized under the group Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification (MAID), who sued to stop the implementation of the new laws in late 2023.

Rent Free Newsletter by Christian Britschgi. Get more of Christian's urban regulation, development, and zoning coverage.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

By preempting local zoning restrictions on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and duplexes but leaving similar private covenants in place, MAID alleged that the new laws violated the Montana and U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection guarantees.

The group also claimed that the state violated substantive due process protections by arbitrarily lifting local zoning restrictions without any legitimate government interest in mind.

In a 55-page decision, Gallatin District Court Judge Mike Salvagni rejected most of MAID's arguments.

The state's decision to reform local zoning codes while leaving private covenants untouched did not violate Equal Protection guarantees given the inherent differences between local laws and private contractual relationships, he ruled.

"A covenant is a contract and an ordinance is not," wrote Salvagni. "A restrictive covenant is not a provision of a zoning code."

This is a surprising reversal on Salvagni's part. In December 2023, he granted MAID's request for a preliminary injunction against Montana's ADU and duplex laws on the grounds they would likely succeed on their equal protection claims.

The Montana Supreme Court reversed that injunction in September 2024 while still allowing the lawsuit to go ahead.

Contra MAID's claims that the new laws were completely arbitrary, Salvagni ruled that "clearly, housing affordability is a legitimate governmental concern and the new laws at issue relate to that concern."

Salvagni did side with MAID's challenges to Montana's new planning law, which limits citizens' ability to challenge local approvals of individual projects and site plans. Those limitations violated the Montana Constitution's public participation guarantees, he ruled.

Supporters of Montana's zoning reforms cheered Salvagni's Monday decision.

"Today's ruling by Gallatin District Court to uphold critical pro-housing reforms is a victory for all Montanans striving for affordable, attainable housing," Gianforte said in a post on X.

My statement on the pro-housing district court ruling out of Gallatin County: pic.twitter.com/KmpnmVXxw0

— Governor Greg Gianforte (@GovGianforte) March 3, 2025

While MAID's lawsuit was playing out, the rest of the state was generally moving ahead with the 2023 reforms.

Local governments in places like Missoula, Montana, have been incorporating the changes into local laws.

That allowed David Kuhnle, a Missoula landlord whose ADU project had been stalled by Salvagni's initial decision enjoining the ADU and duplex laws, to move ahead with his development.

"We have walls, and the truss is on last week," says Kuhne, who with the help of Pacific Legal Foundation had intervened on the side of the state in the MAID lawsuit.

"We're all facing these problems of housing costs and housing affordability. Hopefully, it helps having more options for more people," Kuhnle adds. "I think the whole NIMBY approach was just a bunch of curmudgeon people that didn't want to share in the view that we have more people in the world every day and they have to live someplace."


…And One Defeat

In less happy news, a bill that would have protected Montana property owners from all manner of zoning restrictions narrowly failed in the Legislature.

In a narrow 24–26 vote in mid-February, the Montana Senate failed to advance the Private Property Protection Act, sponsored by Sen. Becky Beard (R–Elliston).

The bill would have required that any property use restriction adopted by any unit of state or local government be "demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling governmental interest in public health or safety."

Private property owners would be entitled to sue a government body that tried to impose or enforce use conditions that weren't narrowly tailored to achieving some health or safety goal.

In effect, this would have created First Amendment–strength protections for private property owners from zoning laws.

Kendall Cotton of the Frontier Institute (which had been instrumental in passing the state's "Montana Miracle" reforms) says that he's hopeful the Legislature will take up the bill again in the 2027 session.


DOGE Slashes HUD Grants to Fair Housing Groups

The Associated Press reported on Friday that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has begun canceling hundreds of "private enforcement" grants awarded to fair housing groups. The cancellations are coming at the direction of President Donald Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The groups use these grants, which typically total $425,000, to investigate landlords for violations of the Fair Housing Act, as well as to file administrative complaints and civil lawsuits against landlords to enforce the law. About three-fourths of fair housing complaints are initiated by private parties.

According to the Associated Press, nearly half of the 162 active private enforcement grants have been canceled so far. HUD told grantees that their awards are being canceled as part of DOGE's efforts.

As Reason has reported, fair housing groups have a history of using these grants to fund investigations and litigation with the goal of effectively creating new housing regulations.

The text of the Fair Housing Act explicitly prohibits landlords from discriminating across a range of protected characteristics, including race, sex, national origin, and disability.

Court decisions and federal regulations have reasoned that facially neutral real estate practices that have a "discriminatory effect" or "disparate impact" can also amount to Fair Housing Act violations.

These grants have funded investigations, complaints, and lawsuits alleging that landlords' policies of not renting to people with criminal convictions or past evictions have a discriminatory effect and are therefore illegal.

In these suits, fair housing groups will claim as damages the federally funded work they put into establishing that a real estate practice has a discriminatory effect.

In 2022, the real estate listing company Redfin agreed to pay $4 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that its policy of requiring homes they listed be above a minimum price had an illegal discriminatory effect on black homesellers.

Critics argue these lawsuits raise costs for housing providers while exposing landlords to nebulous liability.

"There's no way to really know that you're going to be facing potential liability down the road," attorney Ethan Blevins of the Pacific Legal Foundation told Reason back in 2023. "It does put landlords in a really tough position, and it's tough to know what a court will find legitimate."


Study Finds Single-Stairway Apartment Buildings Safe, Affordable

The Pew Charitable Trusts has a lengthy new report on single-stairway apartment buildings, a form of housing that's common in much of the developed world but comparatively rare in the U.S., where building codes typically require multi-unit buildings to have two staircases.

The exhaustive report's topline finding is that "single-stairway buildings as tall as six stories are at least as safe as other types of housing. And allowing the construction of such buildings could provide much-needed housing, including homes for people with modest incomes."

Reforms that would allow larger apartment buildings to be built with just one staircase are under consideration in over a dozen states and localities.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis championed these reforms in a recent interview with Reason.

Read the whole report here.


Quick Links

  • Some systems are even more restrictive than zoning. A new report from the pro-housing Centre for Cities in the United Kingdom urges England to ditch its discretionary planning system (where officials have the ability to deny any development) for a more predictable and permissive by-right zoning regime.
  • The Trump administration has axed the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, which required federal housing grantees to produce lengthy reports showing that they were taking actions to further fair housing. The administration's new rule will allow grantees to self-certify that they are furthering fair housing.
  • Speaking of self-certification, a new California bill would allow homeowners to defer mortgage payments if they claim they've been financially impacted by the recent wildfires.
  • Boston zoning officials have blocked a neighborhood birthing center from moving ahead in the city's historic Moreland District. Who says that NIMBYs just don't want more people around?
  • In New Mexico, a Senate committee has advanced a bill that would allow cities to adopt their own rent control policies.

Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Jail Time for Cheap Rides?

Christian Britschgi is a reporter at Reason.

Housing PolicyMontanaAffordable HousingZoningDepartment of Housing and Urban DevelopmentDOGEProperty Rights
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (12)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Rick James   5 months ago

    …And One Defeat
    In less happy news, a bill that would have protected Montana property owners from all manner of zoning restrictions narrowly failed in the Legislature.

    In a narrow 24–26 vote in mid-February, the Montana Senate failed to advance the Private Property Protection Act, sponsored by Sen. Becky Beard (R–Elliston).

    The bill would have required that any property use restriction adopted by any unit of state or local government be "demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling governmental interest in public health or safety."

    Private property owners would be entitled to sue a government body that tried to impose or enforce use conditions that weren't narrowly tailored to achieving some health or safety goal.

    In effect, this would have created First Amendment–strength protections for private property owners from zoning laws.

    You see what this is about now, right?

  2. damikesc   5 months ago

    Everybody does not want to live in hyper cramped cities. If you motherfuckers left DC or NYC, you'd know that.

    1. See.More   5 months ago

      Everybody does not want to live in hyper cramped cities.

      1.) Then by all means, don't. But nothing in the "Montana Miracle" would create "hyper cramped cities." It would preempt local zoning restrictions of duplexes (one building, two living units) and accessory dwellings (essentially two buildings, two living units). It's not like some suburb will be turning all of their single-family houses into beehive, thirty-unit apartments.

      2.) That's great! But in a free society you don't get to use the police power government to impose your preferences on everyone else.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   5 months ago

        damikesc doesn't want a free society. He wants a conservative society.

      2. damikesc   5 months ago

        And the state should override the locality...why?

    2. RoninX   5 months ago

      We're talking about Montana here, not Manhattan.

  3. Longtobefree   5 months ago

    OK, I am lost again. Do libertarians want local level control, or state level control?

    (yes, neither is the ideal; but in the choice, higher up the chain, or closer to home)

    1. JFree   5 months ago

      What level of government is paying for the infrastructure that supports that zone?

    2. RoninX   5 months ago

      Libertarians want individual freedom. If the government is infringing on your freedom, what difference does it make if it's at the federal, state, or local level?

  4. aronofskyd   5 months ago

    Monday's court decision was a good result. I live in Montana and strongly supported the 2023 law which expanded housing options. Montana's housing shortage throughout the state is so critical we have joined Idaho as the country's most expensive housing state by far when we apply rental and sale prices to income. Bozeman, where Monday's court decision was issued, is Montana's most expensive housing city. These are unwanted distinctions.

  5. JFree   5 months ago

    A different strategy/approach needs to be implemented. Specifically limiting the area of R1 zones. Those areas are huge infrastructure drains. The bigger the area, the bigger the drain squared. It's pretty easy to calculate the net cost of those areas relative to other zoning types.

    If the owners there want to increase their payment for that spread-out infrastructure so they pay for it themselves, I don't see the problem with that. If they want to pockmark those R1 zones with zones that better cover the cost of infrastructure for that area (which is more likely to be mixed zones but could also be R-2 type zones), then that's ok too.

    The public conversation needs to be more about finances/costs/etc than about 'density' or 'we don't want more traffic' or other bullshit.

  6. AT   5 months ago

    Create low-income housing, get low-income residents.

    How long it takes them to turn it into a ghetto... ¯\(ツ)/¯

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Zach Cregger's Weapons Is a Horror Film That Doesn't Tell You What To Think

Peter Suderman | 8.8.2025 10:27 AM

The Occupation

Liz Wolfe | 8.8.2025 9:36 AM

Here's What Happens to the Economy if Trump Fires Jerome Powell and Installs a Loyalist at the Fed

Jared Dillian | 8.8.2025 8:15 AM

Mocking Elected Officials Is a Sign of a Healthy Democracy

Steven Greenhut | 8.8.2025 7:30 AM

Making the World Freer with Homemade Guns

J.D. Tuccille | 8.8.2025 7:00 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!