A legal battle has erupted over a proposed housing development in Belton, Missouri. Regardless of the lawsuit’s outcome, the case illustrates how the housing approval process enables small but organized opposition to stall or halt development, driving up costs and constraining supply, regardless of planners’ or developers’ intentions.
On December 2, Jabal Companies and Calvary University filed a federal complaint alleging that the City of Belton discriminated in rejecting a proposed 252-unit affordable housing project on city-owned land. The plaintiffs argue that public opposition included racially coded language and that the city council’s decision violated the Fair Housing Act by relying on stereotypes about prospective tenants.
The project was modest in scale, encompassing just over eight acres near Westover Road and Bong Avenue, across from Calvary University and adjacent to a public golf course. Plans included a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments, along with amenities such as a pool, playgrounds, and a community clubhouse. The site had remained undeveloped for decades.
Belton’s own community development staff had described the parcel as “an underutilized property not being used for its highest and best use.” The city was expected to contribute nearly seven acres, with Calvary selling an adjacent one-acre parcel. Jabal Companies had already secured low-income housing tax credits and begun engineering and design work.
Public opposition quickly emerged. During rezoning hearings, residents raised concerns about crime, school overcrowding, and declining property values—common themes in debates over subsidized housing. According to the lawsuit, many of these objections, and the council’s response to them, reflected coded language around race and socioeconomic status.
Whether the legal claims succeed remains uncertain. But from a policy standpoint, this case illustrates a broader challenge: what political scientist Francis Fukuyama termed a “vetocracy,” in which a small number of actors can block change, even when there is widespread recognition that change is necessary.
Across the country, similar dynamics play out in neighborhood meetings, zoning boards, and advisory councils. These forums are intended to enhance democratic participation. In practice, they often amplify the voices of politically engaged homeowners who oppose new housing near their properties.
In Belton, the developers spent months working with city officials and cleared several early procedural steps. Yet because no binding approvals had been secured, a single up-or-down vote by the city council effectively killed the project—despite prior staff support and what the plaintiffs contend was a complete and compliant application.
These decisions carry real consequences. Projects that are blocked or delayed leave more families searching for housing that doesn’t exist. Each additional layer of discretionary approval adds uncertainty and expense, discouraging developer investment.
The current system also distorts the market. Developers recognize that affordable housing proposals often face the most resistance and may instead pursue higher-end projects with fewer political risks—or leave the market altogether. Or, as is too often the case, developers seek public subsidies to offset the additional costs of delays and red tape. In contrast, cities such as Raleigh, North Carolina, which have restructured local review boards and relaxed zoning restrictions, have seen measurable increases in “missing middle” housing options such as duplexes and townhomes.
Community input remains essential, and many developers are willing to engage with residents. But Missouri’s approval process, which features duplicative reviews, ambiguous standards, and politicized hearings, is simply too burdensome.
