Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Vincent Chiappetta (Willamette) has posted The (Practical) Meaning of Property, Willamette Law Review, Vol. 46 (2009). The abstract:
The paper argues that defining property functionally – as a flexible tool for implementing all manner of social decisions allocating control over available resources rather than in terms of fixed attributes or outcomes – substantially clarifies related public policy debate. The approach reveals we should reject characterizations of property as “good or bad” or as a “yes-or-no” proposition to which we react as well as the assumption that those with whom we disagree about its proper deployment are fools badly in need of enlightenment, or worse. These false dichotomies distract us from the core difficulty in property debate – our honestly and strongly held but conflicting beliefs regarding what constitute “just” resource control outcomes; a disagreement we should acknowledge cannot be fully resolved by reason, much less passion. Finally, the functional approach keeps us resolutely focused on the practical effects of our respective normative positions and, in particular, on the consequences if the resulting property rules fail to adequately “deliver the goods” to all concerned. When a society’s property law does not produce “enough and good enough for all” those suffering the adverse effects must ultimately abandon the joint enterprise, a process history shows to be both unpleasant and unpredictable regarding winners and losers (if those terms can be said to apply at all). This practical distributional inquiry does not (and cannot) mandate individual or group action, but it does merit serious consideration every time we find ourselves debating how “best” to use property law to allocate control over increasingly scarce and contested resources.
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Can UberPOOL Make Carpooling Cool?
- Are Earth Day cookies an endangered species?
- Fordham Urban Law Center's Sharing Economy | Sharing City Conference - April 24
- Land Use, Telescopes and Sacred Land in Paradise
- Tekle on Percent-for-Art Ordinances