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.
- 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?
- Stephen R. Miller on What makes people leave rural areas, and what makes them stay
- March 3 - J.B. Ruhl to deliver Boehl Distinguished Lecture in Land Use Policy at U Louisville Law
- Is this blog post "advertising"? California's bar proposes bright-line rule for regulating attorney blogs
- Two upcoming RMMLF events: 61st Annual Institute (July 16-18 in Anchorage) and 17th Institute for Natural Resources Law Teachers (May 27-29 at Utah Law)
- First Principles for Regulating the Sharing Economy
- Webinar on New Markets Tax Credits and rural CED: Thursday, Feb 26