Friday, July 26, 2013
The NFL has a very complicated system of assigning jersey numbers. More or less, players in certain positions can only be issued numbers within certain ranges. Punters, for example, must choose a number between 1 and 19. Here's the full chart:
From a property perspective, what's interesting about all this is that once a player chooses their number, NFL teams seem to recognize that the players have something like a property right over their selections.
For example, if a player is drafted by a team and he wants a number that is already being worn by another, the newcomer would need to negotiate with the current "owner" for the right to wear his preferred digits. Sometimes thousands of dollars change hands. Here's one story:
When Donovan McNabb arrived in Minnesota before the 2011 season, his No. 5 was being occupied by veteran punter Chris Kluwe. Instead of wearing a different number for the first time in his NFL career, McNabb engaged Kluwe in negotiations for the No. 5. Kluwe responded with some interesting requests. According to Marc Sessler of NFL.com, McNabb had to donate $5,000 to Kluwe's charity, Kick for a Cure, mention Kluwe's amateur band in a news conference and buy the punter an ice cream cone to get the No. 5. McNabb agreed on the terms and was given the No. 5. He eventually made good on the donation, and also name-dropped the band on a few occasions. The fulfillment of the ice cream portion of the payment is currently unknown.
At least one dispute has ended up in court. "Washington Redskins running back Clinton Portis agreed to pay defensive back Ifeanyi Ohalete $40,000 for the No. 26. Ohalete agreed, and Portis donned his favorite number during his stint in Washington. However, the deal turned sour once Ohalete was released from the Redskins the next August. According to Ohalete, Portis stopped payment of the deal at $20,000. Ohalete eventually sued, and Portis was forced to pay $18,000 of the remaining $20,000 balance."
Amy Morris (Aspen Envt'l Group), Jessica Owley (Buffalo), & Emily Capello (Aspen Envt'l Group) have posted Green Siting for Green Energy (J. Energy & Envtl L.) on SSRN. Here's the abstract:
energy development is critical to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Solar energy projects can replace polluting fossil fuels, but because
they are land-intensive, solar projects also have environmental costs.
Large projects have the potential to provide hundreds of megawatts of
electricity, but could also disrupt huge expanses of undeveloped land.
Arrays of solar panels on commercial rooftops or capped landfills allow
beneficial reuse of developed sites, but these projects are typically
small-scale (less than 1 MW). This tension between renewable energy
development and protection of precious landscapes (particularly desert
landscapes) creates a conundrum for environmentalists.
This paper examines the tradeoffs involved in siting solar projects, with a particular focus on California. The unique ecosystems and biodiversity in the California desert have made the tradeoffs between environmental benefits and costs of solar projects especially apparent. We look at the current hurdles for “greener” siting of projects in disturbed and developed areas, including the obstacles to permitting distributed generation (DG) projects, smaller-scale projects that may be built on parking lots or rooftops. While both large and small scale renewables are necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are many opportunities for greener renewable energy siting. Greener siting must proceed on two fronts. First, as large utility-scale solar facilities will be an important component of a sustainable energy future, we need to improve the environmental review and sustainability of those facilities while being wiser about where we locate such projects. Marginal agricultural land and abandoned mine lands can provide untapped opportunities. Second, distributed generation with solar photovoltaics located across the state will be vital. The key to greener siting of DG is fostering the expansion of renewable projects in disturbed areas, particularly contaminated sites and rooftops and parking lots. A challenge of DG is the number of actors, permits, and environmental review process required. Facilitation and coordination of these processes will speed the journey to a solar energy future.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Joe Singer points us toward a New York case that erodes one of the common law's strongest protections for tenants:
The New York Court of Appeals relaxed a traditional rule of property law by holding that a commercial landlord’s interference with possession of 12 square feet of space out of a total of 15,000 square feet does not constitute a partial actual eviction entitling the tenant to a full rent abatement. Eastside Exhibition Corp. v. 210 East 86th Street Corp., 965 N.E.2d 246 (N.Y. 2012). The court noted that withholding of the entire amount of rent is the proper remedy when there has been a partial eviction by a landlord but a partial eviction will not be found if the landlord’s intrusion is trivial and has no effect on the tenant’s use or enjoyment of the property. In this case, the landlord merely placed cross-bracing between two steel support columns on both of tenant’s floors in a manner that did not affect the tenant’s use or enjoyment of the leased premises. The only effects of the cross-bracing were minimal effect on the flow of foot traffic and the fact that the bracing was unattractive, insufficient to constitute partial eviction.
Kent McNeil (Osgoode Hall) has posted Aboriginal Title in Canada: Site-Specific or Territorial? on SSRN. Here's the abstract:
This paper addresses the issue of Aboriginal title to land, and the relationship I see between Indigenous law and the common law in this context. In my understanding, there have been three judicial approaches to Aboriginal title: 1. A purely proprietary approach, based on occupation of land and the effect given to occupation by the common law (common law Aboriginal title). 2. An Indigenous law approach, whereby Aboriginal title arises from and is defined by pre-existing Indigenous law (Indigenous law title). 3. A territorial approach, whereby Aboriginal title is derived from both common law and Indigenous law and has governmental dimensions (territorial Aboriginal title). I am going to describe each of these, and then offer some critical comments on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard and the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s more recent decision in William v. British Columbia (the Tsilhqot'in Nation case).
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Jacob Rubin ponders the view from atop the world's tallest building:
Many skyscrapers, while yearning quite obviously for style points, serve a clear utilitarian mission: to maximize office space in a crammed chunk of commercial real estate. This is true of the Empire State Building, the Willis (formerly Sears) Tower, and Shanghai’s World Financial Center. This is deeply untrue of the Burj . . . . Its clear lack of usefulness seems to indicate its status as an art object.
It is a 360-degree view from the Burj Khalifa’s observation deck, and I would say about forty-five degrees of that semicircle looked out at the plots of ordinary skyscrapers. The rest of the view—approximately 330 degrees—was of flat, low urban developments shading into the varied browns of the desert. To the west, a hazy view of the Persian Gulf. All of which would have been mostly unchanged at a much lower height. The irony—a simple one, perhaps, but one I could not get over—was that this building was the city’s most meaningful sight and we were now inside it, looking out at the very little that surrounds it.
This was not the intended view from the Burj. When construction began in 2004, Dubai was still in the grip of fiendish development. By 2009, with the Burj partially completed, Dubai had plummeted into apocalyptic debt, requiring a $10 billion loan from oil-rich Abu Dhabi to complete the project. (Originally titled the Burj Dubai, it is now named after the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, presumably part of the deal.) No doubt more architectural wonders would have enlivened its view, if not for this financial catastrophe, caused in no small part by the erection of the Burj itself. [...]
And yet this strange panorama makes a trip to the Burj inadvertently sublime. Every monument, at its inception, gives rise to its future ruin, and yet few face the prospect as directly as the Burj. From its state-of-the-art observation deck, one beholds the ageless, ungoverned desert. Futility is never more futilely refuted than with a monument. The Burj seems to have been erected to elucidate this fact.
(HT: Andrew Sullivan)
Zachary Liscow (Berkeley - Ph.D.) has posted Do Property Rights Promote Investment But Cause Deforestation? Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Nicaragua (Journal of Environmental Economics) on SSRN. Here's the abstract:
Many policymakers argue that property rights decrease deforestation. Some theoretical papers also make this prediction, arguing that property rights decrease discount rates applied to a long-term investment in forestry. However, the effect is theoretically ambiguous. The paper takes a novel instrumental variables approach based on Nicaragua's agrarian reform to test for the effect, using a new data-set — Nicaragua's 2001 agricultural census. It finds that property rights significantly increase deforestation. The model, supported by the data, suggests a likely mechanism for this relationship: property rights increase investment, increasing agricultural productivity and therefore the returns to deforestation.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
The good news is that unlike other areas of the world that are struggling to reverse a development decline, there are millions of people who would love a chance to move to Detroit: immigrants. Rather than focus on the sisyphean task of convincing people who currently don’t want to move to Detroit, we should focus on how to allow in those who do. This is a far easier task for the government, even if it too requires significant policy change. What’s more, letting people from around the world move to where they want also happens to be the closest thing to a free market plan that could actually make a big difference.
Many will think this is a radical experiment in “foreignizing” a city, but this is not the case. Detroit will not become Beijing or some radical experiment of a wholly foreign U.S. city. In fact it can help make Detroit more similar to successful U.S. cities. Right now, the population of New York City is 36.8% foreign born. In comparison, Detroit is only 5.1%. foreign born. This means Detroit would have to let in around 360,000 immigrants just to reach the percent foreign born of New York City. However many immigrants they let in, it’s not likely to approach this. But even if it did, it would not be unprecedented by U.S. city standards. More modestly, increasing the foreign born population to 20% would fall far short of New York City standards, but would still mean 133,000 new immigrants. This would go a long way towards sopping up the 99,000 vacant homes that are plaguing the city.
Sam Panarella (Montana) has posted Not in My Backyard Pash v HPC: The Clash between Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights and Western Concepts of Property in Hawaii (Envtl Law) on SSRN. Here's the abstract:
This article examines the uneasy truce that exists between Western property law and the original Hawaiian native gathering practices that existed before the arrival of Europeans. The author traces the development of Hawaiian law from early cases that severely restricted gathering rights to more permissive results. The article demonstrates both the strengths and weaknesses of the present system of land tenure in Hawaii and argues for the continued expansion of native Hawaiian gather rights providing such expansion takes place within, not outside of, the dominant fee simple land tenure system now in place in Hawaii.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Over at Slate, Alan Durning argues that the poor need more housing choices, including "working-class rooming houses, with small private bedrooms and shared bathrooms down the hall." In this short piece, Durning does a nice job detailing how middle-class housing standards have become the legal baseline in most communities, a turn that has made life drastically more difficult than it needs to be for minimum-wage workers:
The number of cheap rooms for rent is a fraction of what it once was in American cities. In downtown Portland, Ore., for example, the number of units available to rent for the amount that a minimum-wage worker can afford ($458 per month in 2012) fell from 4,500 in 1994 to 3,200 in 2012, according to the Northwest Pilot Project, a housing provider for seniors. These quarters are almost all subsidized and often have long waiting lists.
Publicly supported low-income housing has emerged but nowhere in the quantities needed to fill the gap. The private housing market could do much more to provide living spaces affordably if we discarded those requirements that merely protect others’ property values by outlawing rooming houses and other simple housing options.
From The Economist:
THE world drank the equivalent of 6.1 litres of pure alcohol per person in 2005, according to a report from the World Health Organisation published on February 11th. The biggest boozers are mostly found in Europe and in the former Soviet states. Moldovans are the most bibulous, getting through 18.2 litres each, nearly 2 litres more than the Czechs in second place. Over 10 litres of a Moldovan's annual intake is reckoned to be 'unrecorded' home-brewed liquor, making it particularly harmful to health. Such moonshine accounts for almost 30% of the world's drinking. The WHO estimates that alcohol results in 2.5m deaths a year, more than AIDS or tuberculosis. In Russia and its former satellite states one in five male deaths is caused by drink.
Rebecca Scott (Michigan) has posted Under Color of Law: Siliadin v France and the Dynamics of Enslavement in Historical Perspective (Book Chapter) on SSRN. Here's the abstract:
When is it appropriate to apply the term "slavery" -- a concept that appears to rest on a property right -- to patterns of exploitation in contemporary society, when no state extends formal recognition to the possibility of the ownership of property in a human being? Historians, who generally position themselves as enemies of anachronism, may be particularly resistant to the use of an ancient term to describe a twenty-first century reality. And jurists have often been understandably reluctant to employ a word whose historical meaning was so closely tied to a specific property relationship that has long since been abolished in Europe and the Americas.