I think that is a bit hyperbolic, I imagine developers and their lawyers will figure out how to accommodate that decision without too much difficulty.
We might hope so, but it was hardly hyperbolic. It isn't about commercial development where profit motivates companies to find a way around things. We are talking federally required changes to zoning laws and local housing development plans to ensure equitable OUTCOMES to the poor and minorities. To accommodate that, we will see far more complicated and expensive planning processes to ensure compliance and prevent law suites from the Justice Department. Thanks to the TX Dept of Housing majority opinion, it is no longer simply a matter of having color blind or objectively non discriminatory rules. There MUST be non disparate outcomes. That means a bedroom community that does not zone for apartments or requires a certain minimum lot size, effectively keeping the value of housing high and preventing more modest income people from moving there, is required to change the entire nature of their town, or get sued by the feds. The supreme court case in question was about where money to improve housing for the poor was spent. TX wanted to spend the money improving neighborhoods where people were living, worked and had children in schools. The were challenged by an organization that effectively said that money must be spent building housing for the poor in more affluent neighborhoods, in part because those neighborhoods were not integrated enough in race or income level. TX lost. This disparate outcome standard may come to be applied to many aspects of our lives. It certainly will be if the make up of the Supreme Court leans more liberal (DEM President). The Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law, not equal or even fair outcomes.
Although we sometimes differ on the ultimate opinions we draw, I highly respect your ability to research and analyze complex and voluminous documents. Not saying you should waste your time, but if you did give this more thorough analysis including the judicial history, and regulatory plans of this administration, you would find the TX decision just a bit more concerning then you do now.
