Saturday, June 16, 2012
Matt always does a great job of letting us know about new legal scholarship on land use issues. I am hoping to periodically alert folks to interesting articles appearing in peer reviewed journals. Here is a fun article that tells us something that many of us already thought must be true: parks are good.
Source:Landscape and Urban Planning (June 14, 2012)
The social ties between the residents of urban neighbourhoods are in decline due to changing work patterns, increased mobility and developments in communications. Neighbourhood open spaces, and green spaces in particular, provide opportunities for social interactions that may help the residents to establish recognition and develop relationships. This paper investigates the contribution of local parks to the development of social ties in inner-city neighbourhoods. Combining quantitative methods (questionnaire survey) with a qualitative approach (focus group discussions), the research was carried out in three inner-city neighbourhoods in Greater Manchester, UK, characterised by different levels of material deprivation and ethnic diversity. The social survey explored the associations between the respondents’ visits to local parks and the number of friends and acquaintances they had. The findings suggest that local parks may support the development of social ties in inner-city areas. Associations were found between the quality of the parks, the character of visits, and the extent of social ties in the neighbourhood. The study concludes that for inner-city parks to realise their full potential in supporting social interactions and developing social ties, they need to be well-maintained and provide good recreational facilities. The development of social ties was also found to be considerably affected by the characteristics of the individuals and the neighbourhood.
Here is a call for papers that may be of interest to some of our readers. I would love to submit somthing myself, but it seems like this is the 100th event scheduled for October 12th.
Call for Papers: Washington and Lee's "Climate Change in the Former Colonies: Challenges of Property and History"
From the CFP:
Washington and Lee University School of Law’s Law and History Center, in partnership with Virginia Sea Grant, will host a symposium on Climate Change in the Former Colonies: Challenges of Property and History. Recognizing the unique impact that the colonial legal experience continues to have on Eastern states, the symposium will focus on the application of legal historical research to contemporary problems and opportunities in the areas of policy-making, property rights, and hazard resilience in coastal communities. Panel presentations and potential topics include:
- How the colonial legal experience affects modern property rights and our responsiveness to climate change
- Historical and modern property doctrines—particularly nuisance, zoning, and eminent domain—and their relation to current climate change challenges and policies
- Changing notions of acceptable land use and natural resources
- Environmental hazard resilience policies and opportunities for their enhancement via legal strategies
We are open to suggestions of other related topics.
You can download the full CFP here:
Friday, June 15, 2012
Via Congress for the New Urbanism, I came across this link to what looks like a great panel discussion hosted by the Cato Institute and cosponsored by Next American City, called "The Death and Life of Affordable Housing." Here is the link to the video. The session features a terrific lineup of thoughtful commentators. From the event description:
Featuring Ryan Avent, Author of The Gated City; Adam Gordon, Staff Attorney, Fair Share Housing; Randal O'Toole, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute, and author of American Nightmare: How Government Undermines the Dream of Homeownership; Matthew Yglesias, author of The Rent Is Too Damn High; moderated by Diana Lind, Executive Director and Editor-in-Chief, Next American City. . . .
The Cato Institute and Next American City will jointly host a panel discussion about housing and development policy in American cities. For several decades, U.S. policymakers have grappled with how to make housing more affordable for more people. In the past year, several new books have claimed that various government tools, such as zoning and subsidies, have limited people's access to desirable, affordable housing—while other leading thinkers have suggested that markets alone will not create socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable communities. With a shared goal of creating livable, affordable communities for all people—but diverging ideas of how to get there—the panel will give voice to a range of perspectives on the hotly debated issue of how to shape 21st-century American cities.
I plan to check it out this weekend. Enjoy,
June 15, 2012 in Affordable Housing, Books, Conferences, Development, Environmentalism, Housing, Lectures, Planning, Scholarship, Sustainability, Urbanism, Zoning | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Prof. Julian Juergensmeyer (Georgia State) writes to inform us about what looks like a truly fascinating opportunity:
The Center for the Comparative Study of Metropolitan Growth is pleased to announce a Study Space Program in Istanbul, Turkey March 31- April 6, 2013.
A Study Space is a week-long intensive workshop, in which academic scholars and professionals come together to study and develop solutions to the challenges being faced by cities throughout the world. This program will focus on disaster preparedness from an interdisciplinary perspective of land use policies, building restrictions, and the handling of environmental refugees. It will be a collaboration with the Payson Center for International Development at Tulane University's Law School in New Orleans and the law school at Bahcesehir University in Istanbul, Turkey.
The workshop will use the issue of earthquakes in Turkey as a focused topic and also as a springboard toward a larger discussion of disaster preparedness and urban land use in the modern world. Contact Prof. Juergensmeyer for any questions. With its interdisciplinary and transnational basis, this is surely going to be a really rewarding event.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
I meant to post this when it came out late last month but exam grading swallowed me up for a while; many of you have probably already seen this announcement elsewhere. Anyway, tomorrow (June 15) is the deadline to submit abstracts for what will surely be one of the highlights at next year's AALS. Via Shelley Saxer and Tim Mulvaney:
The AALS Section on Property is pleased to announce a Call for Papers for its joint program with the AALS Section on Natural Resources & Energy Law during the AALS 2013 Annual Meeting in New Orleans, LA. This joint program, entitled “40 Years of Environmental and Natural Resources Law: A Prospective Look,” will forecast how the law surrounding environmental and natural resources might change in the four decades to come. It is scheduled for Monday, January 7, and accompanies a companion program jointly sponsored by the AALS Sections on North American Law and Environmental Law, which is entitled “40 Years of Environmental and Natural Resources Law: A Retrospective Look.” Therefore, this event in its entirety will include four interrelated one-and-one-half-hour sessions.
The specific session organized by the Section on Property is centered on “A Prospective Look at Property Rights.” Broadly speaking, the panelists will examine the legal and political issues that local, national, and international communities confront in seeking to balance public and private interests in the face of significant modern environmental and natural resource challenges. The Section on Property seeks one to two papers that will advance this session’s theme and complement the scholarly perspectives of the following speakers: Maxine Burkett (University of Hawaii School of Law), Steven Eagle (George Mason University School of Law), John Echeverria (Vermont Law School), and Carol Rose (invited) (University of Arizona College of Law). The George Mason Law Review has agreed to publish papers emanating from this session’s presentations in the spring of 2013.
Full-time faculty members of AALS member and fee-paid law schools are invited to submit an abstract not exceeding one page by e-mail to Shelley Saxer (Pepperdine University School of Law), the Chair of the Section on Property Law, at Shelley.Saxer@pepperdine.edu by June 15, 2012. Professor Saxer will select one or two of the submissions for inclusion in the program in consultation with the Section’s officers. Submitting authors will be notified of the results of the selection process by July 1, 2012. To assure timely publication, selected authors should plan to submit their papers of 7,000-8,000 words above the line to the George Mason Law Review by November 1, 2012. The selected authors will be responsible for paying their annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses. Questions should be directed to Professor Saxer at the above-noted email address.
I recently came across several studies that answer a long-running question of mine: what is the carbon footprint of goods traveling from China to that big box store down the road? The answer also planted a more perplexing question: could it be possible that the carbon footprint of goods in China, if built and assembled in China (or some other distant country) and shipped in a particular eco-sensitive way, could be less than goods "made in the USA"?
The issue of goods transportation and carbon footprints seems to me one of the most important, but potentially counter-intuitive, aspects of land use policy. Independent of economic concerns, which of course is a huge issue of its own, we might presume that a consumer good "made in the USA" has a lower carbon footprint than one made in China. But what if the "American" good is made from parts manufacturers around the world and simply assembled in the United States? For instance, just 40% of the Ford Focus in made in the USA, and just 15% of that car is made in Mexico, with the remainder coming from non-North American parts suppliers. Most "American" cars are really smorgasbords of parts suppliers shipped from the world over to a factory in the US. At the very least, that provides factory assemply jobs for US workers. But if we just consider the environmental impact for a minute, would the carbon footprints of those cars be lower if all the parts were made in one place in China, assembled in China, and then those cars were shipped to their US destinations?
While I can't answer that question directly, a really interesting November, 2011 paper, Moving Containers Efficiently with Less Impact: Modeling and Decision-Support Architecture for Clean Port Technologies, by Josh Newell and Mansour Rahimi at USC's School of Policy Planning and Development, traces the important steps in answering carbon footprint issues in the supply chain. In particular, Chapter 2 in the report models the emissions from real container shipments of an undisclosed toy manufacturer from manufacturing destinations in China to various retail destinations across the US.
The report noted that there were three main contributors to carbon footprints, each of which were potential variables:
The first is the land contribution, which is partitioned into China and United States segments, and is further partitioned into truck and rail segments. The second contribution comes from the sea, which is portioned into cruising speed, and slow speed segments. The third contribution comes from port operations for loading and unloading containers.
In general, the report concluded:
For the average container shipped from China to various U.S. destination zip codes, a carbon footprint of 2,821 kilograms per container per trip was determined. Transport by container ship is the most efficient in terms of CO2 burned per mile. So it is possible for a container to travel a greater distance, yet have a smaller carbon footprint than one that uses land transportation (train/truck) for a greater portion of the distance.
So there you have it: 2,821 kilograms per container on average. And the further the container goes by ship, the lower the CO2 emissions. A similar NRDC study studying retail apparel shipments from China to Denver compared air to ship transit and concluded:
[T]he truck-air-truck pathway emits over 5 times more soot (particulates) and 35 times more greenhouse gases than rail-ship-rail, sending an additional 99 tonnes [sic] of greenhouse gases into the air. On the ocean leg alone, a retailer would reduce GHG emissions by 99% sending cargo by ship instead of plane. Using this method, a retailer could send 101 full containers by ship and still emit fewer GHGs than one container sent by plane.
So ships are cleaner than air transit, too. And what if we could make ship transit cleaner, with greener fuels and such?
All of this brings me back to my new question. If ship transport is relatively green (and we could likely make it greener), and we can run ships all around the world and ship things in containers for relatively low costs, would it be better from a carbon emissions perspective to build all the parts near an assembly site for a product in China and ship it here, or build parts around the world and assemble it in the US? This presumes, of course, that we cannot convince manufacturers to both build the parts and assemble them in the US, which seems to be an industrial model that has gone the way of the dodo bird for economic reasons.
The implications seem vast to me for our industrial areas, both for how we conceive of them in economic and environmental terms in this global age. If the shipping container has changed the economics of manufacturing (anyone interested in this must read Marc Levinson's excellent The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger), might it also change the environmental aspects of manufacturing, too? And if so, what might this mean for our city's industrial areas, and in particular, how we contemplate their environmental footprints? I'd be curious if anyone has studied this particular issue.
Stephen R. Miller
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Elinor Ostrom, the first woman to be awarded the Nobel Prize for economics, and a major contributor to issues in land use policy, died yesterday. This blog has chronicled Ostrom's influence on land use legal scholarship over the years, and a collection of this site's posts related to Ostrom can be viewed here.
Stephen R. Miller
Joseph D. Kearney (Marquette) and Thomas W. Merrill (Columbia) have posted Private Rights in Public Lands: The Chicago Lakefront, Montgomery Ward, and the Public Dedication Doctrine, 105 Northwestern University Law Review (2011). The abstract:
The Chicago Lakefront, along Grant Park, is internationally regarded as an urban gem. Its development - or, perhaps more accurately, lack of development - has been the result of a series of legal challenges and court rulings, most famously involving the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Illinois Central R.R. v. Illinois (1892), and four decisions of the Illinois Supreme Court, from 1897 to 1910, involving Aaron Montgomery Ward. The former invented the modern public trust doctrine, which continues as much the favorite of environmental groups; the latter involved the now largely forgotten public dedication doctrine.
This article begins with a description of the evolution of what is now known as Grant Park. After tracing the origins of the public dedication doctrine in the nineteenth century, the article describes how the doctrine was invoked in controversies over the use of the Chicago lakefront before Montgomery Ward came on the scene. The article then details Ward’s remarkable crusade to save Grant Park as an unencumbered open space, which created a powerful body of precedent having a lasting impact on the use of the park. Next, the article describes the limits of the public dedication doctrine that was recognized in the Ward precedents. The article concludes with some brief observations about why the public trust doctrine eclipsed the public dedication doctrine, a comparison of the efficacy of the two doctrines in the context of the Chicago lakefront, and by offering general reflections about what this history tells us about the promises and pitfalls of recognizing 'antiproperty' rights to contest development of public spaces.
A terrific example of how legal history and land use case studies can illuminate important issues of legal doctrine.
June 13, 2012 in Chicago, Constitutional Law, Development, Environmentalism, History, Planning, Property Rights, Scholarship, State Government, Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
As some of you know, the ABA section on Real Property recently has started a monthly teleconference called "Professors' Corner," to update section members and anyone who else is interested on recent developments in property, real estate, and land use law. Tanya Marsh writes with a reminder that the June call is scheduled for Wednesday, June 13:
The Real Property Trust and Estate Law Section of the ABA will host monthly "Professor's Corner" Conference Calls featuring three property professors who will discuss recent cases. You do not need to be a member of the section or the ABA to participate in the call.
The June call will be held on June 13th at 12:30 eastern/11:30 central and so on. The call-in information is:
Dial in number: 866/646-6488
Participant Pass code: 9479109954
The June call will feature:
Ray Brescia, Visiting Clinical Associate Professor of Law at Yale, currently on leave from Albany Law, will discuss recent developments in "Reverse Redlining" litigation in the wake of the financial crisis. He will focus on recent settlements of actions against Wells Fargo and Countrywide Financial, and provide a brief overview of other ongoing litigation.
Shelby Green, Associate Professor at Pace Law School will discuss Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. The Prudential Ins., Co. Of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. 2011). In this case, the court considered whether disclaimer-of-representations language in a lease contract precludes a fraud in the inducement claim.
John V. Orth, William Rand Kenan Jr. Professor of Law at University of North Carolina School of Law will discuss RBS Citizens, N.A. v. Ouhrabka, 30 A.3d 1266 (Vt. 2011) in which the court considered a creditor’s challenge to the doctrine of tenancy by the entireties.
Check it out. I participated last month (talking about Severance v. Patterson) along with Tanya and Wilson Freyermuth, and it was a great deal of fun. This month's lineup looks great. I encourage you to dial in; and any prof who is interested in participating should contact Tanya or Troy Rule.
I have been a bit quiet on the blog these past few days because I have been busy attending some amazing events. I already told you all about Widener's Constitutional Environmental Rights Workshop that I found inspiring for kick starting some long-planned work on the Public Trust Doctrine, but I also want to take a moment to praise a new Junior Environmental Law Scholar Works-in-Progress Workshop.
Amanda Leiter of American University's Washington College of Law organized an excellent weekend. Five of us submitted works in progress. We all read each other's work closely and a couple of others joined in to provide comments. We spent 60-90 minutes on each person, with indepth discussions. It was amazingly helpful. We ended on Saturday with a field trip to Kenilworth Park and Aquatic Gardens, a truly hidden jem on the Anacostia River. Events like this are remarkably productive and fun. So who out there wants to coordinate the first Land Use Works-in-Progress event? (please invite me)
"Speaking of frac'ing fraking fracking, the University at Buffalo recently created a new Institute to study the issue. The Shale Resources and Society Institute (SRSI) was created back in April and has already been quite busy. It recently issued its first report on the Environmental Impacts of fracking Shale Gas Drilling.
My first reaction to this report was "Wow, I can't believe they put this together in just one month." Others actually spent more time carefully reading the document, however. Generally, the reaction has been a negative one.I think there are many reasons to criticize the fracking report and to question its findings and others have done so admirably. Environmentalists are concerned about the legitimacy of the study, which concluded that "state oversight of oil and gas regulation has been effective" and that there is "a low risk of an environmental event occuring in shale development, and the risks continue to dimish year after year."
There was some small kerfuffles regarding peer review (peers offered feedback but did not do a formal peer review) and folks disputed the data and the conclusions. I have been quite intrigued by the discussions that have popped up about the funding of the study. While people quickly jumped to the conclusion that the study was funded by oil and gas companies, that turned out not to be true. However, many criticize the publishing of what is a "pro-fracking' report from a public institution. Particularly rankling appears to be the report authors' ties to industry and a earlier report some of them had written for a conservative think tank. This is an issue we rarely face in legal academia as so few of us receive extensive outside funding (and I personally don't know anyone who has received industry funding), but I wonder how much we should have to disclose when publishing articles. Should we include a footnote explaining who our former clients are? what organizations we support? Do these requirements change if we work for public institutions?
The Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review has published Property and Identity: Vulnerability and Insecurity in the Housing Crisis, 47 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 119 (2012) by Nestor Davidson (Fordham). This piece builds on the author's previous theoretical work in the area of property and personal identity by taking a hard look at the, perhaps evanescent, soul-searching occasioned by the nation's mortgage crisis. Here's an excerpt from the introductory section:
A growing body of evidence in a number of fields has challenged the ethos of acquisition thatprevailed before the crash, and these insights can form the basis for a different understanding of property and identity. It is not clear, however, that this opportunity is taking hold. As the economy stabilizes, early signs of a rebalance involving a shift toward an emphasis on personal relationships and experiences rather than possessions seem to be fading.
The housing crisis, in short, holds lessons about the ineluctable distortions that the intimate landscape of property can generate. This Article focuses on three facets of that landscape. Part I examines the role that status anxiety played in the housing boom. Part II turns to emotional aspects of how the pendulum has swung against homeownership after the downturn. Part III reflects on what these dynamics suggest for rethinking homeownership as a touchstone, and for re-examining the centrality of consumption more broadly. The Article concludes in Part IV by arguing that the legal system and housing policy must be more cognizant of these emotional variables, even if the institutional mechanisms available to do so are relatively limited.
Monday, June 11, 2012
June has long been a perennial favorite of blushing brides and nervous grooms (apparently June, August, September, and October are the most popular months for weddings). In step with the season, on June 6, 2012 the Ninth Circuit issued an intriguing decision, Kaahumanu v. Hawaii, (slip opinion here, or at 2012 WL 2018171), that will affect anyone out there planning to offer vows on a Hawaiian beach at sunset. In short, you will need a permit.
The case also has less romantic, but no less important, offerings for land use lawyers. In particular, it deals with the interplay of First Amendment rights and the regulation of shorelines in a case I think must be one of the few appellate decisions where those lines of law intersect.
The case was brought by a Native Hawaiian pastor and professional wedding event coordinators who objected to the State's permit requirement for any commercial activity, including weddings, on the State's 200 "unencumered beaches." In particular, the regulations applied only to State jurisdiction on such beaches, which extended from the "water's edge" to the "hightide line," defined in a previous Hawaiian case as the "upper reaches of the wash of waves, usually evidenced by the edge of vegetation or by the line of debris left by the wash of waves."
The permit terms were outlined by the court, in part, as follows:
Terms and Conditions provide that a permit can reserve a “right-of-entry area” for no more than two hours. The fee for a permit is $0.10 per square foot of the requested beach area, with a minimum of $20 per “event.” An applicant for a permit must obtain “comprehensive public liability insurance,” naming the State of Hawai‘i as an additional insured, of “at least $300,000 per incident and $500,000 aggregate.” An applicant must also agree to indemnify and hold harmless DLNR for loss or damage arising out of actions by the applicant. No alcoholic beverages are allowed in the permitted area. An applicant must agree to restore the beach to its original condition after the event.
Although the court concluded that "wedding ceremonies are protected by the First Amendment," the court upheld the permit regulations under a variety of First Amendment challenges, even though they applied to weddings as few as three people (the bride, groom, and officiant). Interestingly, the court did hold that another term, which allowed the State to revoke permits or add to permits' terms and conditions with "unbridled discretion," violated the First Amendment.
While the lengthy decision is too detailed to summarize here, those interested in the regulation of commerce at the water's edge--perhaps your mind turns to Nollan or public trust cases among others--will find this case of interest. Those interested in the interplay of the First Amendment and land use will also be rewarded.
Stephen R. Miller