Monday, June 13, 2011
John Echeverria (Vermont Law) testified at the House Judiciary hearing. He said, “Only the most compelling national interest could justify such a massive, untimely intrusion into state policy-making, and the case for such an intrusion cannot be made here...approximately 40 states, four-fifths of all the states in the union, have now adopted some kind of post-Kelo reform measure. Some applaud the reform steps adopted, while others believe they have at least sometimes been misconceived. Some believe certain state legislatures have gone too far in curtailing the power of eminent domain, while others believe some states have not gone far enough or have abdicated their responsibility by not imposing any new constraints on this governmental power The bottom line, however, is that the state legislatures, as well as the voters in many state, have fully engaged on this issue.”
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.
- Katherine Dentzman on A Coordinated Approach to Food Safety and Land Use Law at the Urban Fringe
- Jesse Richardson on Local Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Local Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing
- Samuel on Schleicher and Rauch on local regulation of the sharing economy
- Timothy Wayne George on Is Reed v. Town of Gilbert an important sign case?
- Jan 30 - Boston U Law - The Iron Triangle of Food Policy - AJLM Symposium
- "Basic Human Right" to Farm Your Lawn?
- CFP: Fordham Law: Sharing Economy, Sharing City: Urban Law and the New Economy
- Fennell and Peñalver on Exactions Creep
- March 11-13: Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute's annual conference: Western Places/Western Spaces: Building Fair & Resilient Communities