Wednesday, October 5, 2011
In the post just below this one, Adam MacLeod wrote:
And those few protections that the law once extended to property owners have all but disappeared. For example, the Supreme Court in Kelo re-wrote the Takings Clause to allow takings for a public purpose.
It may well be the case that the Kelo Court's interpretation of the Takings Clause is improper. But I want to clarify a minor point: there's nothing new about this. As early as 1954, the Court allowed governments to bulldoze neighborhoods to support redevelopment by private parties. See Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954). And in 1984, the Court allowed most of Hawaii's land to be redistributed to individual homeowners, based on the "public purpose" this. See Hawaiian Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).
I think you can credibly argue that the Court doesn't protect property enough. But the Court has felt this way for a long, long time.
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.
- 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?
- Josh Hightree on What makes people leave rural areas, and what makes them stay
- Jessica Shoemaker on What makes people leave rural areas, and what makes them stay
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- New Land Use Articles on SSRN
- What to make of the fierce new debate over the efficacy of California's energy codes?
- The W&L Top 100 Law Review Rankings and the Land Use Law Scholar
- CFP: 2015 Future of Places Conference (lead-in to Habitat III) in Stockholm: Deadline of April 15
- Water Down Under: A Report from Australia by Barbara Cosens: Post 7: Conjunctive Management Down Under