Friday, August 12, 2011

2011 Conference on Litigating Regulatory Takings

John Echeverria (Vermont) sends along the announcement for the 14th annual Conference on Litigating Regulatory Takings Claims:

The 14th Edition of the Conference on Litigating Regulatory Takings Claims will be held this year on November 18 on the GULC campus in Washington, D.C. The conference will be co-sponsored by Vermont Law School and Georgetown University Law Center. Additional co-sponsors include: American Planning Association, Planning and Law Division; International Municipal Lawyers Association; Maryland Municipal League; National Association of Counties; National League of Cities; National State Attorneys General Program at Columbia Law School; U.S. Conference of Mayors, and Virginia Municipal League.
 
Speakers include: Mark Barron, J. Peter Byrne, David Callies, Martin R. Cohen,
Steven J. Eagle, John D. Echeverria, Mark Fenster, Denise G. Fjordbeck,
Alexandra B. Klass, Robert Meltz, Thomas W. Merrill, J. Michael Ponder,
Joseph L. Sax, Christopher Serkin, Daniel L. Siegel, Gregory M. Stein,
A. Daniel Tarlock, and William M. Treanor.
 
Looks like a great lineup once again.  For more information, the conference website is http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Takings2011/.
Matt Festa

August 12, 2011 in Climate, Coastal Regulation, Conferences, Constitutional Law, Eminent Domain, Environmental Law, Environmentalism, Judicial Review, Planning, Property Rights, Scholarship, Takings | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Somin on Federalism and Property Rights

Ilya Somin (George Mason) has posted Federalism and Property Rights, University of Chicago Legal Forum (2010 Symposium on Governance and Power), p. 1, 2011. The abstract:

Both the Supreme Court and leading legal scholars have often cited federalism as a reason to severely limit federal judicial enforcement of constitutional property rights. Defenders of the federalism rationale for judicial deference on property rights issues make two key arguments. One holds that abuses of property rights by state or local governments will be curbed by interjurisdictional competition, rendering judicial intervention unnecessary. The second is the superior knowledge and expertise of state and local governments relative to federal judges.

This article criticizes both claims. Part I explains why competitive federalism is unlikely to provide effective protection for property rights in land because property is an immobile asset. People who “vote with their feet” by leaving a jurisdiction cannot take their land with them. For this crucial reason, interjurisdictional competition will often fail to effectively protect property rights in land, though it may be more useful in the case of rights to mobile property.

Part II takes up the issue of diversity and expertise. While state and local governments may indeed have greater expertise than federal courts in assessing local conditions, federal judicial protection of property rights ultimately empowers not judges but property owners. It is the latter who will actually get to decide the uses of the land in question in cases where federal courts prevent state or local governments from condemning their property or restricting its use. Owners generally have greater knowledge of their land than local government officials do. Moreover, the local expertise rationale for judicial deference on property rights would, if applied consistently, justify judicial deference to state and local governments with respect to numerous other constitutional rights, including those protected by the First and Fourth Amendments.

Questions about federalism with respect to property and land use have been getting a lot of attention recently. This article looks like it will really contribute to those discussions. While other land use scholars are focusing on questions of federal vs. state vs. local regulation of property and land (i.e., legislative and administrative acts), Somin's article focuses on asking which level of government is appropriate to exercise judicial review of those acts. It will be interesting to compare.

Matt Festa

August 11, 2011 in Constitutional Law, Economic Development, Eminent Domain, Federal Government, Judicial Review, Local Government, Property Rights, Property Theory, Scholarship, State Government, Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Digital Companion to Practically Grounded Conference Now Available

For those of you who missed the Practically Grounded conference this Spring, or for those of you who just want a refresher, the on-line companion is now available from the Pace Environmental Law Review. The following articles are available:

Teaching Intrapersonal Intelligence as a Lawyering Skill: Introducing Values Systems into the Environmental Law Syllabus
Michael Burger

Now We're Cooking!: Adding Practical Application to the Recipe for Teaching Sustainability
Jonathan Rosenbloom

Academic Research and Writing as Best Practices in a "Practically Grounded" Land Use Course
Matthew J. Festa

Teaching from the Dirt: Best Practices and Land Use Law Pedagogy
Keith H. Hirokawa

Distributed Graduate Seminars: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Studying Land Conservation
Jessica Owley and Adena R. Rissman

They Do Teach That in Law School: Incorporating Best Practices into Land Use Law
Patricia E. Salkin

Alternative Learning Formats in a Land Use Seminar
Michael Lewyn

Learning in Context: Land Use and Community Lawyering
Andrea McArdle

Values as Part of the Clinical Experience
Jamie Baker Roskie

For a full list of the conference sessions and presenters, the brochure is still available on-line here.

Jamie Baker Roskie

August 9, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, August 8, 2011

Joplin Repurposes Abandoned Spaces for Schools

Last week I heard a great story on NPR about how the folks in Joplin are gearing up for the school year.  My favorite aspect of the story is how they're making an old Shopko into the high school, and an abandoned industrial space into the middle school. Read or listen here.

Jamie Baker Roskie

August 8, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, August 7, 2011

America's Top 10 Walkable Cities, 2011

Or so says WalkScore, according to this article America's Ten Most Walkable Cities of 2011, by Jason Notte in The Street.  A lot of the usual suspects are on the list, which you can see by clicking over to the story.  Also interesting is the description of Walk Score:

The people behind Walk Score, a Seattle-based service that rates the convenience and transit access of 10,000 neighborhoods in 2,500 cities, have spent the past four years judging the distance between residents and amenities and ranking places based on the results. That "walkability" led to the first set of rankings in 2008 and the use of those rankings by more than 10,000 cities, civic organizations and real estate groups in the years that followed.

Once something becomes measurable, then you have numers that start to play a role in policy debates, budgets, and markets.  I suspect we'll see even more use of metrics and quantitative analysis in areas like livability, sustainability, and so on in the years to come. 

I'm not familiar with their methodology, but if you go to the Walk Score website you can check out the walkability score for your own address.  Mine: 68 ("somewhat walkable").

Thanks to Mubaraka Saifee for the pointer.

Matt Festa

 

August 7, 2011 in Budgeting, Chicago, Density, Local Government, New Urbanism, New York, Pedestrian, Planning, Sustainability, Transportation, Urbanism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)