Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Lee Fennell (Chicago) has posted Crowdsourcing Land Use, 78 Brook. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2013). In it she looks ahead to the possibilities for emerging information technology to provide platforms for sharing data about land use impacts and preferences as well as landowner intentions. The last of these involves a proposal for the creation of publicly facilitated options markets in land use rights, an idea she previously outlined in her 2011 piece Property and Precaution (Journal of Tort Law, 2011). Here's the abstract for the Crowdsourcing article:
Land use conflicts arise from information shortfalls, and avoiding them requires obtaining and using information. Yet traditional forms of land use control operate in relative ignorance about landowner intentions, about preferences for patterns of land use that do not presently exist, and, more fundamentally, about land use impacts as they are experienced on the ground. Because information is expensive to gather and use, this ignorance may be rational. New technological and theoretical advances, however, offer powerful ways to harness and deploy information that lies dispersed in the hands of the public. In this symposium essay, I assess the prospects for an increased role for crowdsourcing in managing land use, as well as the limits on this approach. Governments must do more than elicit, aggregate, coordinate, and channel the preferences, intentions, and experiences of current and potential land users; they must also set normative side constraints, manage agendas, and construct appropriately scaled platforms for compiling and using information.
Friday, April 12, 2013
I got my registration brochure this past week for the AALS Midyear Meeting to be held in San Diego in early June. Along with two criminal justice programs, it features a Worskhop on Poverty, Immigration and Property that brings together a fascinating mix of presentations from scholars frequently referenced on your favorite land use law blog. Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend; but, I look forward to seeing the papers.
One panel that drew my eye features work from David Reiss (Brooklyn), Marc Poirier (Seton Hall) and Twila Perry (Rutgers-Newark). We have previously blogged about related work by David and Marc. Prof. Perry has written extensively about transracial adoption, but I was not familiar with her work prior to receiving the mailing. She will be presenting in June on Gentrification: Race, Class Law and the Integrationist Ideal. I came across an earlier work she published comparing gentrification and transracial adoption entitled Transracial Adoption and Gentrification: An Essay on Race, Power, Family, and Community, 26 B.C. Third World L.J. 25 (2006). Here's the abstract:
In this article, Professor Perry finds common ground between the two seemingly disparate contexts of transracial adoption and gentrification. Professor Perry argues that both transracial adoption and gentrification represent contexts in which, in the future, there may be increasing competition for limited resources. In the former case, the limited resource is the healthy Black newborn. In the latter, it is desirable, affordable housing in the centers of our cities. After explaining how a competition between Blacks and whites over Black newborns could arise, Professor Perry argues that in any such competition, Blacks will increasingly find themselves at a disadvantage stemming from the consequences of institutionalized racism. The article argues that there is a public discourse in both contexts that blames Blacks for the problems facing Black families and Black communities and valorizes whites who transracially adopt or move into inner-city neighborhoods undergoing gentrification. Professor Perry urges increased government involvement to preserve Black families and to protect Blacks against the displacement that often results from gentrification.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Greetings from George Washington Law School where the 2013 J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Conference is wrapping up. Entitled Laying the Foundation for a Sustainable Energy Future: Legal and Policy Challenges, there has been an impressive array of panelists from industry, governements, NGOs, and academia.
My co-athour Amy Morris (of Aspen Environmental Group) and I presented some of our work on the land use tradeoffs involved in renewable energy projects. We have been looking at these issues through the lens of solar projects in California, but the issues come up in many contexts. To give you some broad strokes of the project: In California, we see development of main types of projects--utility scale and distrbuted generation. The large utility-scale solar facilities in the California desert have been under heavy scrutiny and criticized for their potential impacts on environmental and cultural values. In an effort to avoid pristine desert ecosystems, agencies and environmental groups have been championed the use of distrubed lands. Such lands are not completely controversy-free either. As a threshold question, we have to figure out what lands should qualify as "distrurbed." In some cases, it may be that we are too quick to label something as disturbed. Generally though the big categories are brownfields, former landfills and mines, hardscapes (parking lots and rooftops), and marginal agricultural lands. I won't get into here, but trust me each of those categories has a host of issues surrounding its use.
I've been feeling a little out of my league as the land use lawyer in the midst of the energy experts but have learned a lot and have been impressed with GW's organization of the conference. I also really enjoy attending conferences in Washington DC where the audience is always filled with a great mix of people from agencies and nonprofits.
- Jessie Owley
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Nestor Davidson (Fordham) has posted New Formalism in the Aftermath of the Housing Crisis, Boston University Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 389, 2013. The abstract:
The housing crisis has left in its wake an ongoing legal crisis. After housing markets began to collapse across the country in 2007, foreclosures and housing-related bankruptcies surged significantly and have barely begun to abate more than six years later. As the legal system has confronted this aftermath, courts have increasingly accepted claims by borrowers that lenders and other entities involved in securitizing mortgages failed to follow requirements related to perfecting and transferring their security interests. These cases – which focus variously on issues such as standing, real party in interest, chains of assignment, the negotiability of mortgage notes, and the like – signal renewed formality in nearly every aspect of the resolution of mortgage distress. This new formalism in the aftermath of the housing crisis represents something of an ironic turn in the jurisprudence. From the earliest history of the mortgage, lenders have had a tendency to invoke the clear, sharp edges of law, while borrowers in distress have often resorted to equity for forbearance. The post-crisis caselaw thus upends the historical valence of lender-side formalism and borrower-side flexibility.
Building on this insight, this Article makes a normative and a theoretical claim. Normatively, while scholars have largely embraced the new formalism for the accountability it augurs, this consensus ignores the trend’s potential negative consequences. Lenders have greater resources than consumers to manage the technical aspects of mortgage distress litigation over the long run, and focusing on formal requirements may distract from responding to deeper substantive and structural questions that still remain largely unaddressed more than a half decade into the crisis. Equally telling, from a theoretical perspective, the new formalism sheds light on the perennial tension between law’s supposed certainty and equity’s flexibility. The emerging jurisprudence underscores the contingency of property and thus reinforces – again, ironically – pluralist conceptions of property even in the crucible of hard-edged formalism.
Monday, April 8, 2013
From Wilson Freyermuth (Missouri) via the property listserv comes the announcement for this Wednesday's Professors' Corner--the monthly free teleconference sponsored by the ABA's Section on Real Property, Trusts, & Estates. This one looks really interesting. See below for the info and dial-in instructions.
Professors' Corner: Legal Education and Uniform Laws Group Call
April 10, 2013, 12:30pm Eastern/11:30am Central/9:30am Pacific
Call-in number: 866-646-6488
The April 2013 program is entitled "Real Estate-Related Uniform Laws in Progress." This program will discuss the status of the two major uniform law projects related to real estate that are currently underway within the Uniform Law Commission (which we all used to know as NCCUSL).
The first project is a comprehensive revision of the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. The URLTA was originally promulgated nearly 40 years ago and has been adopted, either in part or in whole, in approximately 20 states. During this month’s program, Professors Sheldon Kurtz (University of Iowa) and Alice Noble-Allgire (Southern Illinois University), who are the co-Reporters for this Act, will discuss the current status of this project and some of the key issues being addressed in this revision. These revisions will receive their "first reading" at this summer's annual meeting of the Uniform Law Commission in July 2013. In case you’re curious, here is a copy of the current draft of the Act: http://law.missouri.edu/freyermuth/JEBURPA/2013apr2_RURLTA_MtgDraft.pdf.
The second pending real-estate related uniform law project is a new project to produce a uniform act governing residential mortgage foreclosure processes. This project began earlier this year after extended study by the Uniform Law Commission, as well as a stakeholder meeting at which input was taken from both industry and consumer groups, as well as federal and state regulators. The Act proposes to address residential mortgage foreclosure processes and mortgagor protections in both judicial foreclosure and nonjudicial foreclosure. During the program, Professors James Smith (University of Georgia) and Alan White (City University of New York), who are the co-Reporters for this project, will discuss the status of this project and the key issues being addressed in this project. Here is a copy of the current draft of this Act, which will likewise receive its "first reading" at this summer's Uniform Law Commission meeting: http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/Residential%20Real%20Estate%20Mortgage%20Foreclosure%20Process%20and%20Protections/2012mar25_RREMFPP_MtgDraft_Clean.pdf.
Please join us on Wednesday for this month’s call!
Friday, March 29, 2013
Lee Anne Fennell (Chicago) has posted Property in Housing, 12 Academia Sinica Law Journal 31 (2013). The abstract:
The question of how to structure and package the residential experience is a deeply interesting and difficult one. How physically large or small should residential holdings be? How densely should they be clustered? Should spaces for working, recreating, cooking, and bathing be contained within the private residential unit, shared with other households, or procured a la carte? How permanent should the connection be between a household and a living space? How much control should households have over the environment surrounding the dwelling unit? Answers to these and many other queries differ both within and between societies. This keynote address, delivered at Academia Sinica’s Fourth Conference on Law and Economic Analysis in June 2012, shows how a law and economics perspective that emphasizes problems of scale can illuminate the task of configuring residential property optimally.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Marc Poirier (Seton Hall) has posted Brazilian Regularization of Title in Light of Moradia, Compared to the United States’ Understandings of Homeownership and Homelessness, __ U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
This Essay considers the cultural resonances of regularization of title (regularização) for homeownership in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro. It compares those resonances to the cultural meaning of homeownership in the United States. Brazil’s approach is informed by an understanding of moradia, a right to dwell someplace, that is a far cry from its typical English translation as a right to housing. Brazil also draws on constitutional provisions and a long Latin American tradition concerning the social function of property, as well as a general theoretical understanding of the right to the city and of cidadania, a certain kind of citizenship. All of these frames construct homeownership as a gateway to interconnection and full participation in the life of the city. This is distinctly different from the individualistic cast of the prevailing understanding of homeownership in the United States, as personal success and the achievement of wealth, status, and a private castle.
The Essay also considers the standard United States construction of homelessness, which again tends to frame the issue in terms of individual responsibility or blame or of the role of institutional structures as they affect individuals, and typically fails to recognize the effect of having no property on relationships and interconnectedness and ultimately citizenship. The Essay advances five reason for the differences between Brazilian and United States understandings of homeownership. These include very different histories concerning the distribution of public lands; the absence in United States property jurisprudence of anything like the notion of a social function of property; the physical invisibility of informal communities in the United States; United States jurisprudence’s rejection of vague, aspirational human rights claims as law; and an insistence in United States jurisprudence on legal monism and an abstract, universalizing account of property ownership that valorizes one-size-fits-all law rather than case-by-case accounts of how land and dwellings are managed by various local communities.
Finally, the Essay observes a recent groundswell of United States scholarship that debunks “A own Blackacre” as an adequate account of the ownership of land and homes, insisting on a more race- and class-informed account as to both the history of homeownership and possible solutions for providing secure dwelling for the poor. The Essay recommends a convergence of studies of informal communities worldwide with a more nuanced, race- and class-informed understanding of homeownership.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Namita Wahi has posted Land Acquisition, Development, and the Constitution, Seminar Magazine, Feb. 2013. The abstract:
In this article,
I argue that the debates surrounding the adoption of a fundamental right to
property in the Constitution were centred around the somewhat paradoxical desire
to achieve a liberal democratic legal order which guaranteed the rights to
liberty, equality and property, while simultaneously embarking on a
transformation of the economic and social order considered imperative to prevent
a revolution. This transformation was pegged on a development strategy involving
a move from a feudal agrarian to a capital intensive industrial society. A major
component of this transformative agenda was land reform, involving zamindari
abolition abolition and redistribution of land among the peasants. Equally
important, however, was state planned industrial growth and encouragement of
growth of private industry.
The article goes on to assess the history of land acquisition laws in this country against this backdrop. In particular, it analyses the key features of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including the major problems with its implementation. It then analyses the proposed Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, with a view to determining the extent to which the bill addresses the problems with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Finally, the article describes the special constitutional provisions for the Scheduled Areas as contained in the Fifth and Sixth Schedules and analyses to what extent the LARR bill is compliant with existing constitutional guarantees.
Craig Anthony (Tony) Arnold (Louisville) has posted Framing Watersheds, forthcoming in Environmental Law and Contrasting Ideas of Nature: A Constructivist Approach, Keith Hirokawa, ed., Cambridge University Press, 2013. The abstract:
Watershed institutions have emerged in the U.S. out of the structural fragmentation and functional inadequacies of several areas of law and policy. While these institutions organize governance, planning, and management functions around a type of ecosystem (i.e., watersheds), they are highly diverse and evolve over time. This book chapter seeks to understand the diversity of watershed institutions by employing framing analysis to identify the many cognitive and socio-political frames by which the legal system conceptualizes watersheds. More importantly, the chapter analyzes whether watershed institutions have adaptive capacity and can promote ecological and social resilience over time. The processes of multiple framing (multi-framing) and reframing, as seen in several case studies of multi-faceted and evolving watershed institutions, offer considerable promise for society and its watershed institutions to adapt to complex and dynamic conditions. The book chapter explores the barriers to and problems with multi-framing and reframing processes, as well as the opportunities for and benefits of multi-framing and reframing, in light of emerging scientific and social theories about resilience and systemic change.
Tony is a friend of this blog and an occasional Contributing Editor, as well as a leader in the emerging areas of sustainability and adaptive management. Looks like an interesting volume by Keith Hirokawa and others.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Michael N. Widener (Phoenix) has posted Moderating Citizen 'Visioning' in Town Comprehensive Planning: Deliberative Dialog Processes, forthcoming in the Wayne Law Review. The abstract:
This article describes opportunities in Comprehensive Plan (aka General Plan or Master Plan) initial adoption or subsequent amendment processes where stakeholders provide inputs on behalf of a diverse citizens community. The moderation process described here involves the City of Scottsdale, Arizona, currently engaged in developing its 2014 Plan which seeks to extend the city’s planning vision through 2045. Part II of this article provides a brief primer of a General Plan’s role in municipal police power exercise. Parts III and IV describe the history of the Scottsdale experience in amending its General Plan with citizen aid and rebellion. Part V delivers some observations about a citizen input method into planning matters that is subject to popular critique. Part VI summarizes the purpose of citizen inputs into a comprehensive plan, and how professional moderation of the stakeholders' inputs may appropriately channel public contributions to a municipality's land use vision without distortion or corruption of the process.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Brian Sawers (Maryland) has posted Keeping Up with the Joneses: Making Sure Your History Is Just as Wrong as Everyone Else's, forthcoming in Michigan Law Review First Impressions, Vol. 111, p. 21 (2013). The abstract:
Both the majority and concurring opinions in United States v. Jones are wrong about the state of the law in 1791. Landowners in America had no right to exclude others from unfenced land. Whether a Fourth Amendment search requires a trespass or the violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy, government can explore open land without a search warrant.
In the United States, landowners did not have a right of action against people who entered open land without permission. No eighteenth-century case shows a remedy for mere entry. Vermont and Pennsylvania constitutionally guaranteed a right to hunt on open land. In several other states, statutes regulating hunting implied a public right to hunt on (and, by implication, enter) unfenced land.
Dave Owen (Maine) has posted Taking Groundwater. The abstract:
In February, 2012, in a case called Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day, the Texas Supreme Court held that landowners hold property rights to the groundwater beneath their land, and that a regulatory restriction on groundwater use could constitute a taking of private property. The decision provoked strong reactions, both positive and negative, throughout the world of water law, for it signaled the possibility of severe restrictions on governmental ability to regulate groundwater use.
This Article considers the deeper issue that confronted the Texas Supreme Court, and that has confronted other courts across the country: how should the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and parallel clauses of state constitutions, apply to groundwater use regulation? Initially, this Article explains why this issue is exceedingly and increasingly important. It then reviews all of the groundwater/takings decisions from federal and state courts in the United States. Finally, the Article considers the implications of foundational property theories for the application of takings doctrine to groundwater use.
The analysis supports two key conclusions. First, it undermines arguments against treating water rights as “constitutional property” — that is, property protected by federal and state takings clauses. Proponents of those arguments generally assert that treating water rights as property has uneven support from prior caselaw and that such treatment will be prevent sensible governance. A review of groundwater caselaw demonstrates that the former assertion runs counter to the weight of authority, and that the fears underlying the latter argument are overstated. Second, and more importantly, the analysis undermines arguments for granting groundwater use rights heightened protection against regulatory takings. Recently, litigants and commentators skeptical of government regulatory authority have widely advanced those arguments. But they find no support in past groundwater/takings caselaw, and no property theory justifies adopting such an approach.
An important issue, and a reminder that state supreme courts continue to play a crucial role in shaping modern property law.
March 7, 2013 in Caselaw, Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Property, Property Rights, Scholarship, State Government, Sustainability, Takings, Texas, Water | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Association for Law, Property, & Society (ALPS) annual meeting is coming up, and the deadline to register and/or submit paper or panel proposals has been extended to Friday, March 15. From the CFP:
The ALPS 4th Annual Meeting, http://www.alps.syr.edu/meetingsandconferences.aspx, will be held at University of Minnesota Law School, April 26-27, 2013. Our annual meetings attract over 100 participants, approximately one third of whom come from outside of North America and a number of whom do interdisciplinary work.
A couple of additional draws this year: first, Professor Carol Rose will be the honoree and keynote speaker; second, the ALPS conference is immediately following a related conference in energy/environmental law onsite:
The Consortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment & the Life Sciences will be hosting a conference on Legal and Policy Pathways for Energy Innovation on April 24 and 25,
So, as someone on the listserv said, it's a Minnesotapalooza! UM prof and ALPS leader Hari Osofsky is overseeing both.
Remember, ALPS takes pride in hosting a collegial, accessible conference for scholars at all career stages and with various disciplinary interests. Including, but not limited to . . .
· Civil Rights & Inequality (including Race, Gender, Religion, Income, Disability, etc)/Critical Legal Studies
· Economics and Property Law
· Energy/Environment/Climate Change
· History of Property
· Housing/Urban Development/Mortgages and Foreclosure
· Indian Law/Indigenous Rights Law
· Intellectual Property
· International Property Law/Human Rights and Property/Cultural Property
· Land Use Planning/Real Estate/Entrepreneurship
· Property and Personhood/Concept of Home
· Property Theory
· Takings and Eminent Domain
· Teaching Property
So if you haven't submitted or registered yet, now's the time to sign up for ALPS in Minnesota this April.
We are pleased to share with you our latest fact brief: Sandy's Effects on Housing in New York City (PDF) Our report is the first independent, comprehensive analysis of the Superstorm's impact on housing in New York City.
The study revealed some surprising insights into the impacts of the Superstorm Sandy. It found that low-income renters were disproportionately impacted by the storm's surge; over half of the victims were renters, 61 percent of whom make less than $60,000 per year, instead of middle-class homeowners. It also exposed the age of the housing stock affected by the surge; 82% of the properties hit by Sandy were built before 1980, before the latest flood maps and building standards were established.
The report also summarizes newly available information about the characteristics of properties in the area in New York City flooded by Sandy's storm surge, as well as demographic characteristics of households that have registered to receive assistance from FEMA. The study was released in partnership with Enterprise Community Partners, who provided a similar analysis on Long Island and New Jersey.
Lots of interesting maps and data in this report, which should be of interest to anyone researching law, land, housing, and disaster planning
March 7, 2013 in Affordable Housing, Beaches, Coastal Regulation, Community Economic Development, Environmentalism, Federal Government, Housing, Local Government, New York, Property, Redevelopment, Scholarship, Water | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
[Registration here]. Many of you know that the annual meeting of the Association for Law, Property, and Society (ALPS) has quickly become THE place to be for academic discussions in property, land use, real estate, IP, and local government and environmental law--in short, everything that is considered to be in the universe of "property" is more than welcome at ALPS. It's been a really interesting, rewarding, and collegial conference in its first few years, and again, it's almost immediately become the central annual confab for property and land use profs. To wit:
We welcome papers on any subject related to property law and from a diversity of viewpoints. Property related topics areas can include but are not limited to:
Civil Rights & Inequality (including Race, Gender, Religion, Income, Disability, etc)/Critical Legal Studies
Economics and Property Law
History of Property
Housing/Urban Development/Mortgages and Foreclosure
Indian Law/Indigenous Rights Law
Intellectual Property • International Property Law/Human Rights and Property/Cultural Property
Land Use Planning/Real Estate/Entrepreneurship
Property Theory • Property and Personhood/Concept of Home
Takings and Eminent Domain • Teaching Property
The deadline for paper proposals is this Friday, March 1. This year there is also the option to register to attend without a proposal, which makes participation even more accesible to everyone in the field.
I have to clear a couple of calendar items myself too, but I really hope to see all of you In Minneapolis on April 26-27 for ALPS. And on behalf of the ALPS Membership & Outreach Committee, feel free to contact me with any questions.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
John Nolon has posted Towards Engaged Scholarship, an article that is the result of last year's symposium by the same name that he hosted at Pace, which was a follow-up to 2011's highly successful Practically Grounded conference. The meeting was really productive, and even though most of us were discussing engaged scholarship in land use and environmental law, the article has insights about the relationship between research, teaching, and practice that could be valuable to anyone in the field or law teaching generally.
The article is forthcoming. Here are the contributors: John R. Nolon (Pace); land use guest-blogger Michelle Bryan Mudd (Montana); Michael Burger (Roger Williams); Kim Diana Connolly (SUNY Buffalo); Nestor M. Davidson (Fordham); Matthew Festa (South Texas); Jill Gross (Pace); Lisa Heinzerling (Georgetown); Keith H. Hirokawa (Albany); Tim Iglesias (San Fransisco); Patrick C. McGinley (West Virginia); Sean Nolon (Vermont); Uma Outka (Kansas); co-blogger Jessica Owley (SUNY Buffalo); Kalyani Robbins (Akron); guest-blogger Jonathan D. Rosenbloom (Drake); and Christopher Serkin (Brooklyn). Here is the abstract:
The practice-oriented influences of the Carnegie Foundation’s Educating Lawyers and the report of the Clinical Legal Education Association, Best Practices for Legal Education, have been working on the academy for only five years; law teachers are just now learning how they can better prepare their students to practice law “effectively and responsibly in the contexts they are likely to encounter as new lawyers.” These reports have stimulated a vast literature on how law professors can improve their teaching methods, how law schools can alter their curricula, and how the legal academy as a whole can prioritize skills education.
Much less attention has been paid to the connection between legal scholarship and the practice of law. For many law professors, there is an intuitive link between their teaching and scholarship. Does that link apply to teaching law students to be more practice-oriented, and what precisely does that mean? Should our scholarship examine more regularly the problems that practitioners confront and the contexts in which they arise? This article addresses these pressing questions in the context of legal scholarship as a context and opportunity.
This article presents the reflections of sixteen law professors on linkages between scholarship and the legal profession. From these reflections, several themes are identified that lead to new perspective on legal scholarship in a time of dynamic change in the law school education. This article begins a dialogue on engaged scholarship and concludes with the some proposed directions for critical reflection on the roles of law professors as academics and as molders of the careers of their students.
The conference was great, both for the ideas that were shared and for the chance to discuss them with a group of both senior and junior scholars in our fields. I think the article will advance the discussion of how to make scholarship both theoretical but also practically useful.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Steven J. Eagle (George Mason) has posted "Economic Impact" in Regualtory Takings Law, forthcoming in the West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law & Policy. The abstract:
In Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York the Supreme Court stated that the existence of a regulatory taking would be determined through “essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries,” and that one of three factors of “particular significance” was the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant. This article examines the conceptual problem whereby the Fifth Amendment requires compensation for the taking of property and not a fraction of its owner’s worth. The fact that economic impact of stringent regulations is greater when parcels are smaller has led to a complex “parcel as a whole” test that conflates impact with another Penn Central test, owner’s expectations. Furthermore, application of the impact test to parcels held as investment property might vitiate the temporary taking. The Federal Circuit’s recent abandonment of its prior “return on equity” approach is emblematic of this problem.
Measuring the economic impact upon owners also is complex where government condemns part of an owner’s parcel, leading to difficulties in computing severance damages. Broad assertions that “offsetting benefits” conferred upon property owners by government actions reduce the impact of regulations also requires clarification.
The article concludes that unresolved issues and complexities in adjudicating the “economic impact of the regulation on the claimant” test provide an additional reason why the conceptually incoherent Penn Central doctrine must be replaced.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Thousands of religious monuments have been donated to cities and towns. Under Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, local, state, and federal governments now have greater freedom to accept religious monuments, symbols, and objects donated to them for permanent display in public spaces without violating the Free Speech Clause. Now that governments may embrace religious monuments and symbols as their own speech, the obvious question arises whether governments violate the Establishment Clause by permanently displaying a religiously significant object.
Fearing an Establishment Clause violation, some governmental bodies have privatized religious objects and the land beneath them by selling or transferring the objects and land to private parties. Some transactions have included restrictive covenants that require the buyer to maintain the religious object or reversionary clauses that allow the government to reclaim the land. Others have sold or transferred the religious object without soliciting bids from other buyers.
This article provides an in-depth analysis of five cases in which governmental bodies resorted to privatizing public land to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. Drawing from Establishment Clause jurisprudence involving religious displays, this article utilizes the Lemon and Endorsement tests as analytical tools for resolving the constitutionality of land dispositions involving religious displays.
This article considers the purported secular government purposes for selling or transferring land to private parties. The government has sought to justify these land dispositions as a means to provide memorials that honor veterans or promote civic-mindedness, to preserve the religious object in order to avoid showing disrespect to religion, and to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. I argue that these purported government purposes are secondary to a religious interest because there are other alternatives to achieve the government’s purposes.
I also examine the effects of these land dispositions on the reasonable observer. The Herculean efforts exerted by the government to save the religious monument send a message of government endorsement of religion. Restrictive covenants that require the private owner to maintain the religious monument and reversionary clauses that allow the government to reclaim the monument and underlying land perpetuate state action and excessively entangle the government.
I conclude that the best measure to avoid the Establishment Clause is to simply remove the religious object. Removing the religious object will protect the dilution of sacred religious symbols through their secularization and will provide greater inclusiveness in public spaces for religious minorities and nonbelievers.
An original and helpful analysis of an issue that I think has been relatively neglected over the last couple of years, particularly since the Summum case came out-- the interplay between private land use rights and the religion clauses always tends to highlight some of the salient fault lines in many communities.
Every year, the ABA Forum of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law sponsors a student writing competition. The winner gets a $1000, plus an expenses-paid trip trip to DC in May for our Annual Meeting chock full of potential private and public-sector legal employers as well as a chance to publish the submitted piece in our Journal.
As Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law, I wanted to make sure you and your students already knew about the Student Writing Competition. Particularly if you know of a relevant student-written scholarly work (a note, a seminar paper or the like) that deserves consideration, encourage the student to submit the work to me at the email address below on or before Friday, March 8th.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Christopher Serkin (Brooklyn) has posted Affirmative Constitutional Commitments: The State's Obligations to Property Owners, Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Journal, Forthcoming. The abstract:
This Essay, prepared for the 2012 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, argues that social obligation theories in property generate previously unrecognized obligations on the State. Leading property scholars, like Hanoch Dagan, Greg Alexander, and Eduardo Peñalver, have argued that the institution of property contains affirmative duties to the community as well as negative rights. This Essay argues that those affirmative duties are two-way streets, and that moral bases for social obligations also generate reciprocal obligations on the State to protect property owners. The social obligation theories rely upon a dynamic not static vision of property rights. The community’s needs change, the conditions of ownership change, and the appropriate allocation of benefits and burdens within a society changes over time. Therefore, a legal obligation that is justified and permissible at the time it is enacted because it is consistent with moral obligations may become impermissible over time, even if the content of the legal obligation does not change. At the extreme, the State’s failure to respond to certain kinds of changes in the world can lead to a regulatory taking.
An interesting and important take on some of the implications of progressive property theory. Especially interesting is Serkin's appreciation for the changing social notions of property over time, and how that challenges static notions of property rights and obligations.