SB 146 Testimony

Testimony on SB 146 – Request for Clarifications & Revisions

Deanna Campbell

Bozeman, Montana

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on SB 146, a bill that takes an important step toward protecting private property rights by limiting excessive government control over land use and zoning decisions. By requiring that zoning restrictions be based on a "compelling governmental interest" in public health or safety, this bill seeks to rein in unnecessary land-use regulations that infringe on individual property rights.

However, as currently drafted, SB 146 does not fully protect homeowners from forced urban infill, speculative legal challenges, and city-driven upzoning mandates. While limiting government overreach is essential, the bill must also ensure that single-family zoning protections, private property covenants, and neighborhood stability are not eroded by unintended legal consequences.

The Bozeman Example: Why SB 146 Needs Stronger Protections

In Bozeman, we have seen firsthand how local government, influenced by ICLEI-style planning mandates, is eroding single-family zoning in favor of forced high-density development. Under the Unified Development Code (UDC) and "affordable housing" initiatives, the city has:

• Upzoned single-family neighborhoods to allow multi-family housing, without homeowner consent.
• Encouraged speculative developers to buy out older homes and replace them with high-density rental units, fundamentally altering neighborhoods.
• Raised impact fees and infrastructure costs for single-family homeowners while subsidizing highdensity projects.
• Reduced local control over zoning by prioritizing state and regional "sustainability" goals over property owner rights.

If SB 146 is to be effective, it must include clear protections against these types of forced zoning changes and speculative redevelopment pressures.

Recommended Clarifications and Revisions to SB 146

1. Protect Existing Zoning Contracts & Homeowner Reliance Interests

• Many homeowners purchased property with the expectation that zoning laws would remain stable, preserving the character of their neighborhoods.
• Zoning serves as a contract-like agreement between property owners and local governments— one that people rely on when making long-term investments.
• Recommendation: Add language affirming that SB 146 does not weaken or invalidate longstanding zoning protections that homeowners rely upon as a "property interest."

2. Prevent Speculative "Legalized Block Busting"

• The bill currently allows broad legal challenges to zoning and property use restrictions, but the term "compelling governmental interest in public health or safety" is too vague.
• Concern: Developers and investors could exploit this vagueness to file lawsuits that erode single family zoning, leading to forced urban infill and destabilized neighborhoods.
• Bozeman Example: In Bozeman, we have seen developers rapidly replace single-family homes with multi-story townhomes, often against the wishes of longtime residents. This bill must not be used to accelerate such changes.
• Recommendation: Refine the "compelling interest" standard to explicitly exclude density mandates, forced urban infill, or high-density upzoning as valid justifications for overriding single-family zoning.

3. Clarify That Private Covenants Are Not Affected

• Many developments use private covenants to regulate land use.
• If government agencies reference or require certain covenants in the approval process, could those covenants be challenged under SB 146?
• Recommendation: Add language explicitly stating that private covenants are not subject to SB 146 unless they are directly imposed by government entities.

4. Restrict Judicial Overreach in Land Use Challenges

• Concern: As written, SB 146 gives courts broad discretion to overturn zoning laws without clear guidelines.
• This could allow developers to use the courts to override zoning protections in ways that were never intended.
• Recommendation: Establish specific legal guardrails for judicial review, ensuring that existing zoning can only be overturned when it demonstrably violates constitutional property rights—not simply when it limits speculative development.

5. Prevent SB 146 from Being Used as a Backdoor for Forced Density Policies

• While the bill is intended to limit government overreach, poorly worded legal provisions could be exploited to accelerate forced densification rather than prevent it.
• Some cities may reinterpret "compelling governmental interest" to justify forced upzoning, claiming that "climate sustainability" or "affordable housing" qualifies as a health justification.
• Bozeman Example: City planners frequently justify density increases using sustainability arguments, arguing that compact urban housing is a "public benefit." SB 146 must make it clear that economic and climate-related goals do not meet the "compelling interest" standard.
• Recommendation: Explicitly state that urban containment policies, forced densification, and elimination of single-family zoning do not meet the "compelling governmental interest" standard under SB 146.

Conclusion: Strengthen SB 146 to Truly Protect Property Rights

SB 146 is an important and necessary bill that can rein in government overreach and protect private property rights. However, as currently written, it fails to fully address the very threats that homeowners face from speculative redevelopment, forced urban infill, and top-down planning mandates.

To ensure that SB 146 upholds its intended purpose, I strongly urge the committee to:

• Protect single-family zoning from speculative legal challenges
• Prevent courts from being used to accelerate density mandates
• Safeguard private covenants from unintended legal consequences
• Ensure judicial review does not favor developers over homeowners

With these revisions, SB 146 can become a strong, balanced law that truly defends property rights for all Montanans. I encourage further discussion and amendment of the bill to ensure that it fulfills its intended purpose without unintended consequences.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,

 Deanna Campbell