Monday, March 7, 2016

John Oliver / Last Week Tonight take on special taxing districts


Hat tip to Lee Dillion.

March 7, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Zoning’s Centennial, Part 9: Mixed Signals: Exclusionary Zoning and Fairness: A Series by John R. Nolon

Part 9


Zoning’s Centennial

John R. Nolon

Distinguished Professor of Law, Pace Law School

Counsel, Land Use Law Center


Mixed Signals: Exclusionary Zoning and Fairness


After encountering significant NIMBY opposition to the expansion of the Lucasfilm facilities on his land in Marin County, California, George Lucas abandoned his plans and proposed to sell his land to affordable housing developers. The backstory involves the Fair Housing Act, various federal grant-in-aid programs, and a Voluntary Cooperation Agreement entered into between Marin County and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. After an investigation, HUD required the County to take steps to affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for people of color and other groups that face barriers to housing in the region.

Marin County’s minority population is much lower than that of other communities in the Bay Area. As a recipient of federal funding, it has an obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH), which includes eliminating impediments to fair housing, such as zoning restrictions that cause segregation. The neighbors of Lucas’s property are now contemplating a different change in the neighborhood than the one they initially opposed.

Under the 10th Amendment, the matter of land use control is left to the states, which have delegated that power to local governments. Exclusionary zoning is, in the first instance, a matter of state law. It is based on the Euclidian notion that zoning’s purpose is to segregate different land uses into various districts. Zoning is inherently exclusionary. Yet, since land use authority is delegated to localities by the state, there are constitutional limits to excluding growth and affordable housing.

State courts, however, are relatively shy about intruding into the local legislative realm and mandating solutions to affordable and fair housing. State legislatures, because all politics is local, have been equally reticent. Courts in New Jersey and the state legislatures in California and Connecticut which have aggressively and clearly defined the obligations of local government regarding housing are outliers.

New York courts are more engaged in the topic than most state court systems, but their holdings fall far short of providing effective guidance to localities regarding their responsibilities to provide affordable housing. In the seminal case, Berenson v. New Castle (1975),  the state’s highest court noted: “[T]he primary goal of a zoning ordinance must be to provide for the development of a balanced, cohesive community which will make efficient use of the town’s land…. [I]n enacting a zoning ordinance, consideration must be given to regional [housing] needs and requirements…. There must be a balancing of the local desire to maintain the status quo within the community and the greater public interest that regional needs be met.” The state court held that New Castle’s failure to zone land for multifamily housing was exclusionary. Mr. Berenson’s land was then rezoned for condominiums that sold for today’s equivalent of $500,000.

These abstract judicial utterances, in the few jurisdictions where state courts have entered the fray–coupled with the absence of state legislative guidance–leave localities wondering what their obligations are under state law. Meanwhile, if they receive federal funding or fail to rezone land proposed for multifamily housing, like Marin County, they may be liable for their failure to AFFH. The Fair Housing Act aims to fight racial segregation and thus implicates the very nature of zoning. How can segregation be eliminated if most land in communities is zoned for single-family housing, the ubiquitous result of Euclidian zoning? But what exactly does this mean? What does federal law require?

What we know is that communities that receive federal housing and community development funding must certify that they have analyzed the impediments to AFFH and acted in good faith to eliminate them. They may be liable if they have not, which implicates the zoning that creates a segregative settlement pattern. We also know that the refusal to rezone specific parcels for multi-family housing may result in municipal liability for discrimination, if such failure results in disparate impacts or disparate treatment. Huntington Branch, NAACP v Huntington (1986), held: “…[W]e find that the disproportionate harm to blacks and the segregative impact on the entire community resulting from the refusal to rezone create a strong prima facie showing of discriminatory effect.” 

In Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “recognition of disparate-impact claims is consistent with the FHA’s central purpose.” The Court pointed to “zoning laws and other housing restrictions” that it viewed as “unfairly…excluding minorities from certain neighborhoods without any sufficient justification.” It went on to say that “[g]overnmental or private policies are not contrary to the disparate-impact requirement unless they are “artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers. Courts should avoid interpreting disparate impact liability to be so expansive as to inject racial considerations into every housing decision.”

Municipalities and their attorneys are getting unclear signals in this area of land use law. They may create zoning districts and specify whatever uses they wish. But they must not craft these districts and uses in a way that excludes households in the state in search of housing. Yet, nowhere is the extent of this responsibility defined. There is no guidance on what constitutes “the region” or “regional needs”; localities’ “fair share” or their “duty” to actually make housing for such households affordable; or what combination of zoning techniques and housing subsidies (over which there is no local control) municipalities must use. When precisely, under federal law, are localities responsible to affirmatively further fair housing? Is that liability limited to communities that get federal funding and those that deny housing developers multifamily zoning? Or, does it extend to the entire pattern of development created by local zoning if its districts are not integrated racially? Wouldn’t that be injecting racial considerations into every land use decision that affects housing?

Perhaps nowhere in the story of Zoning’s Centennial is the legal system more confused than in this area of fair and affordable housing. It is an interjurisdictional mess, begging for sensible reform. But, where should this reform begin? State governments are often the appropriate intermediary between federal and local interests. State constitutions give the police power to their legislatures. They have, in turn, delegated it to localities regarding land use without clear guidance as to these critical fairness issues. The resolution of these questions should be a matter of state concern and become state priority, given the importance of these unresolved issues.  

For more information, see John R. Nolon, Affordable Housing in the New York Courts: A Case for Legislative Action, N.Y. Zoning Law & Prac. Rep., vol. 7, no. 3 (2006).

Links to previous posts in the Zoning Centennial’s Series:

Part 1: The Need for Public Regulation of Land Use – The First Comprehensive Zoning Law

Part 2:  The Delegation of Legal Authority To Adopt Zoning  

Part 3: Zoning Was Contagious, But Was It Constitutional?

Part 4: The Unintended Consequences of Euclidean Zoning

Part 5: The Most Appropriate Use of the Land

Part 6: The Surprising Origins of Smart Growth

Part 7: The Advent of Local Environmental Law

Part 8: Regionalism and ‘Wistful Hoping’

March 7, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, March 6, 2016

Webcast tomorrow at 6:30 pm Mountain: A grassroots discussion on fracking by the mayor of Dish, Texas

This is a local event about fracking, but since it is being webcast, I am posting it here.  Fracking has just come to Idaho and, with uncertain reserves, it is unclear what role it will play in Idaho's future.  For those around the country with an interest in what grassroots organizations around fracking look and sound like, I thought this could be a way in...without having to leave your computer.  Here is the info:

Tomorrow, Monday, March 7th, Citizens Allied for Integrity and Accountability - C.A.I.A. - is bringing the former Mayor of Dish, TX, Calvin Tillman, to speak at the Lincoln Auditorium at the Statehouse in Boise at 6:30 p.m. (flier attached).  Calvin now sits on the Aubrey City Council and has years of firsthand experience with oil and gas development in his capacity as an elected official and impacted homeowner/father.

Any help you can help you can give us in spreading the word would be much appreciated!  THIS EVENT IS BEING LIVE-STREAMED!  Here's the link.   There isn't a person in the country who will not benefit from hearing Calvin speak.  Even if you are pro-oil and gas, you need to hear what he has to say to protect yourself and get favorable leasing term.  In case the link doesn't work for you:

SB1339 will probably be voted on by the full house on Monday.  If you haven't written/contacted your lawmakers it's not too late.  For those of you on the Eastern side of the state (or Central/Northern Idaho) this bill WILL affect YOU and YOUR property rights also!  If you need a list of talking points, email me and I'll send them!

March 6, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, March 5, 2016

Welcome to our March guest blogger, Jesse Richardson

Land Use Prof Blog is excited to welcome back Jesse Richardson (WVU Law) as our March guest blogger.  Here is a bio:

Jess J. Richardson, Jr. .is the Lead Land Use Attorney at the Land Use and Sustainable Development Law Clinic and Associate RichardsonProfessor of Law at the West Virginia University College of Law. Before coming to WVU, Jesse was an Associate Professor in Urban Affairs and Planning at Virginia Tech, teaching land use law, environmental law, urban growth management and real estate. His research and experience focuses on land use law and water law. Prior to his academic endeavors, Jesse was in private practice in his home town of Winchester, Virginia, first with a large law firm, then as a solo practitioner. He presently serves on the Board of Directors of the American Agricultural Law Association, the Universities Council on Water Resources and the National Cave and Karst Research Institute. He previously served on the Virginia Farmland Protection Task Force and the Virginia Water Policy Technical Advisory Committee. Jesse was honored with the 1999 Professional Scholarship Award from the American Agricultural Law Association, the 2004 William E. Wine Award for a history of teaching Excellence from Virginia Tech (the highest teaching award granted by the university), and the 2009 University Certificate of Excellence in Outreach. He has worked with communities in West Virginia and Virginia on land use planning issues, including issues related to karst and water resources. He holds a B.S. and M.S. in Agricultural and Applied Economics from Virginia Tech and a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law.


March 5, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Ninth Circuit upholds NEPA analysis for forest plan reducing sheep grazing by 70%, potentially paving the way for dramatic reductions in sheep grazing on federal lands

The Ninth Circuit just issued its decision in Idaho Wool Growers v. Vilsack.  Decision here.  The decision upholds NEPA analysis for Payette National Forest forest plan that will reduce sheep grazing in the forest by 70%, from 100,000 acres to 30,000 acres.  With this win, it is likely that the Forest Service, and other federal agencies in the West, will seek to reduce sheep grazing because of fear of disease transmission between domesticated sheep and bighorn sheep.  Here is an excerpt of my editorial about the case for the LA/SF Daily Journals (Nov. 17, 2015 editions, behind pay wall):

In Idaho Wool Growers, sheep grazers challenged the adequacy of the U.S. Forest Service’s environmental review of the Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, a document required under the National Forest Management Act that has been a source of acrimony since its first draft appeared in 1988.  At the center of the plan, which was last amended in 2010, was to reduce grazing of domestic sheep in the forest by 70 percent—from 100,000 acres to 30,000 acres—in order to protect wild bighorn sheep from disease potentially transmitted from the domesticated sheep. 

That proposal cut straight to the heart of locals, as sheep grazing is an industry deeply entrenched in the State’s political and cultural heritage.  For instance, the State’s lieutenant governor, a former president of the Idaho Wool Growers, operated a third-generation sheep farm started by his grandfather, known as “The Sheep King.”  Idahoans continue to celebrate a deep cultural connection to their nineteenth century Basque immigrant forefathers, many of whom were sheep grazers.  Those days meant months at a time spent living in spare karro kampos wagons, a heritage now proudly celebrated and remembered at Basque festivals, called Jaialdi, held every five years in Boise.

It is no wonder, then, that the sheep grazers would seek to prevent the Forest Service from dramatically reducing sheep grazing in the forest.  Moreover, there is concern among many sheep grazers that this forest plan is just the first salvo:  other federal agencies that govern public lands in this State, such as the Bureau of Land Management, are watching this case to decide how to proceed with protecting bighorn sheep from disease on their own lands.  A win for the Forest Service here could mean more big reductions in sheep grazing from those other agencies.  The federal agencies’ hands are also being forced, to some degree, by environmental groups that are challenging sheep grazing allotments out of concern for bighorn sheep.

Despite the high stakes for sheep grazers, the NEPA case itself presents a relatively common “experts” question.  At its core, the plaintiffs’ case is that NEPA regulations require the Forest Service to consider relevant expert agency comments into decisionmaking and that the agency violated this requirement by failing to consider input from the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the in-house research agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is often more favorable to agricultural interests than some other agencies.  In particular, plaintiffs allege that the Forest Service improperly ignored a paper by a specific ARS scientist that cast doubt on the link between domestic sheep grazing and bighorn health issues. 

The Forest Service argued that ARS and the scientist were not relevant “experts” because they had no expertise in wildlife management.  In any case, the Forest Service further argued, it took into consideration opposing viewpoints, voiced largely by representatives of agricultural interests, and weighed those viewpoints against “a large body of peer reviewed and published literature spanning several decades,” the majority of which “supports the potential for disease transmission between the species, documents bighorn die-offs near domestic sheep, and supports the management option of keeping these species separate to prevent disease transmission.”  The agency noted that “there is no peer reviewed literature that suggests [that] bighorn sheep can be grazed with domestic sheep without concern for disease transmission between the species” and that “[s]cientists from both sides of the issue also recommend that the species be kept separate until the disease transmission science is better understood.”

This decision may well be a threshold decision on the future of sheep grazing on federal lands.


March 2, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Land use law articles posted to SSRN in February

Here are all of the land use-law related articles posted to the SSRN Property, Land Use & Real Estate Law eJournal in February.  


Scholars based at U.S. institutions:

 The Private Pore Space: Condemnation for Subsurface Ways of Necessity
Wyoming Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2016
Tara Kathleen Righetti 
University of Wyoming College of Law 

 Simple Acts of Tolerance: A Slap in the Face to Acquisitive Prescription
Jessica Mae Reed 
Southern University Law Center 

 Addressing Rural Blight: Lessons from West Virginia and WV LEAP
24:3 Journal of Affordable Housing and Community, 2016, Forthcoming
Ann M. Eisenberg 
West Virginia University, College of Law, Students 

 On Bargaining for Development
Florida Law Review Forum, Vol. 67
Timothy M. Mulvaney 
Texas A&M University - School of Law 

 A Three-Legged Stool on Two Legs: Recent Federal Law Related to Local Climate Resilience Planning and Zoning
47 Urb. Law. 525 (2015), Touro Law Center Legal Studies Research Paper Series
Sarah Adams-Schoen and Edward Thomas 
Touro College - Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center and Independent 

 Externality Entrepreneurism
BYU Law Research Paper No. 16-03
Lisa Grow Sun and Brigham Daniels 
Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School and Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School 

 The Potlatch as Fractional Reserve Banking
Unlocking the Wealth of Indian Nations, Terry L. Anderson ed., Lexington Books, Forthcoming, George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 16-05
D. Bruce Johnsen 
George Mason University - School of Law 

 Property, Intellectual Property, and Social Justice: Mapping the Next Frontier
Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Journal, 2015, UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 2736517
Peter S. Menell 
University of California, Berkeley - School of Law 

New York Residential Landlord-Tenant Law and Procedure ─ 2015-2016
Gerald Lebovits, Damon Howard & Michael Terk, New York Residential Landlord-Tenant Law and Procedure ─ 2015-2016 (N.Y. St. B. Ass'n 8th ed. 2015)., 
Gerald Lebovits Damon P. Howard and Michael B. Terk 
Columbia University - Law School , Independent and David Rozenholc & Associates 

 Fracking and Cracking: Strict Liability for Earthquake Damage Due to Wastewater Injection and Hydraulic Fracturing
Blake A. Watson, Fracking and Cracking: Strict Liability for Earthquake Damage Due to Wastewater Injection and Hydraulic Fracturing, 11 Texas Journal of Oil, Gas, and Energy Law 1 (2016)
Blake A. Watson 
University of Dayton School of Law 

 A Doctrine Adrift: Wisconsin's Public Trust
Nicholas Bullard 
United States Courts - United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 

 'Foaming the Runway' for Homeowners: U.S. Bankruptcy Courts Preserving Homeownership in the Wake of the Affordable Modification Program
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review, Vol. 23, 2015
Linda E. Coco 
Barry University - Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law 

 On Resolving Church Property Disputes
Arizona Law Review, Forthcoming
Michael W. McConnell and Luke W. Goodrich 
Stanford Law School and The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 

 Two Wrongs? Correcting Professor Lazarus's Misunderstanding of the Public Trust Doctrine
Michael C. Blumm 
Lewis & Clark Law School 

 Shooting the Albatross: Why a State Takeover of Federal Public Lands Would Make Endangered Species Act Compliance More Expensive and Difficult
Environs, Vol. 38, 2016, University of Utah College of Law Research Paper
John Ruple Mark K. Capone Emanuel Vásquez and Alison Jones 
Office of the General Counsel, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce , Wild Utah Project and Wild Utah Project 

 Mitigating Climate Change by Zoning for Solar Energy Systems: Embracing Clean Energy Technology in Zoning's Centennial Year
Zoning & Planning Law Report, December 2015
John R. Nolon 
Pace University School of Law 

 Assessing the Effect of Airbnb on the Washington DC Housing Market
Nicholas Pairolero 

 Fifty Shades of State: Quantifying Housing Market Regulations in Germany
Konstantin A. Kholodilin 
German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin) 

 The Transfer of Public Lands Movement: Taking the 'Public' Out of Public Lands
Stegner Center White Paper No. 2015-01, S.J. Quinney College of Law Research Paper No.99
Robert B. Keiter and John Ruple 
University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law and 

 Buying Happiness: Property, Acquisition, & Subjective Well-Being
David Fagundes 
University of Houston Law Center 

 Local Regulating of Drone Activity in Lower Airspace
Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law, Forthcoming, Arizona Summit Law School Paper Series 2016-A-02
Michael N. Widener 
Arizona Summit Law School 

 Fracking in Louisiana: The Missing Process/Land Use Distinction in State Preemption and Opportunities for Local Participation
Louisiana Law Review, Forthcoming, UNM School of Law Research Paper No. 2016-01
Alex Ritchie 
University of New Mexico School of Law 

 A Park for Everyone: The National Park Service in Urban America
56.1 Nat. Resources J. 1 (2016), Akron Research Paper No. 16-01
Sarah J. Morath 
University of Akron - School of Law 

Decentralized, Disruptive, and On Demand: How the Sharing Economy Will Re-Shape Local Government
Ohio State Law Journal, Forthcoming
Stephen R. Miller 
University of Idaho College of Law - Boise 

 Penn Central Take Two
Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper No. 16-6
Christopher Serkin 
Vanderbilt Law School 

 Colonial Property, Private Dams, and Climate Change in Virginia
Washington & Lee Legal Studies Paper No. 2015 - 21
Jill Fraley 
Washington and Lee University - School of Law 

 The Political Rhetoric of Property and Natural Resource Ownership: A Meditation on Luck, Taxation and Appalachia
Washington & Lee Legal Studies Paper No. 2015 - 20
Jill Fraley 
Washington and Lee University - School of Law 

 Reforming Proposition 13 to Tax Land More and Buildings Less
California Policy Options, 2016, Forthcoming, UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research Paper No. 16-01
Kirk J. Stark 
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law 

 'Raisins are Not Oysters': Horne and the Improper Synthesis of the Public and Wildlife Trusts
Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2016
Autumn T Breeden 
University of Mississippi, School of Law, Students 

 Toward a Heterodox Property Law and Economics
2 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 489, 2015
Lua K. Yuille 
University of Kansas School of Law 

 Land Use Law Update: Reed v. Town of Gilbert Redux
29 Mun. Law. 39 (Fall 2015), Touro Law Center Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 16-05
Sarah Adams-Schoen 
Touro College - Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center 

 Code Section 1031 Swap-and-Drops Thirty Years after Magneson
Journal of Passthrough Entities, Vol. 19, p. 11, 2016, Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 441
Bradley T. Borden 
Brooklyn Law School 


Scholars based at non-U.S. institutions:

 Urbanistica, moschee e altri luoghi di culto. Riflessioni a partire da una recente legge della Regione Lombardia. (Urban Planning and Mosques. A Critical Exploration of Planning Problems Starting from Current Regulations in Lombardy Region, Italy)
GSSI Cities Working Papers Series 26/2016
Francesco Chiodelli and Stefano Moroni 
Gran Sasso Science Institute - GSSI Cities and Polytechnic University of Milan 

 Land Tenure in Asia and the Pacific: Challenges, Opportunities and Way Forward
David P Mitchell Danilo Antonio Donovan Storey Teo CheeHai and Lowie Rosales-Kawasaki 
RMIT University - School of Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences , UN-HABITAT , United Nations - Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) , Independent and UN-HABITAT 

 Estudio De Los Últimos Postulados Referentes a La Atribución Del Uso De La Vivienda Familiar. La 'Necesidad De Vivienda' (Survey on Latest Advancements on Legal Doctrine as to the Allocation of the Family Home Possession. 'The Need for Housing')
InDret, Vol. 1, 2016
Beatriz Verdera Izquierdo 
University of the Balearic Islands 

 Distributional Consequences of Upstream Tree Plantations on Downstream Water Users in a Public-Private Benefit Framework
Agricultural Systems 139 (2015) 271-281
Thomas L. Nordblom Iain Hume John D. Finlayson David J. Pannell Jonathan E Holland and Anthea J. McClintock 
Government of New South Wales - Department of Primary Industries , Australian National University , Charles Sturt University - Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation , University of Western Australia , NSW DPI and NSW Trade & Investment - NSW Department of Primary Industries 

 New Amendments to Russia's Privatization Legislation: Cosmetic Measures or Further Deregulation?
Russian Economic Developments. Moscow, 2016, #2, pp. 86-92
Georgy Malginov and Alexander Radygin 
Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy and Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy 

 Efectele Partajului (Effects of Partition)
Annals of the "Constantin Brâncuşi" University of Târgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2015, 
Titu Ionascu 
University Constantin Brancusi of Targu-Jiu 

 К ВОПРОСУ О ЗАЩИТЕ ПРАВ ГРАЖДАН И ЮРИДИЧЕСКИХ ЛИЦ ПРИ ИЗЪЯТИИ ЗЕМЕЛЬНЫХ УЧАСТКОВ (To the Question of Protection of the Rights of Citizens and Legal Entities at Seizure of Land)
Victoria Bagdasaryan 
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA) 

 Ukraine's Transition from Soviet to Post-Soviet Law: Property as a Lesson in Failed Regulation
U. of Adelaide Law Research Paper No. 2016-02
Paul T. Babie 
University of Adelaide - School of Law 

 Попытки модернизации в России. Судьба собственника его собственности (институциональный анализ) (Attempts to Reform Russia: Tracking Back the Liberty and the Property)
Vladimir Lisin Konstantin Moshe Yanovskiy and Sergei Zhavoronkov 
Novolipetsk Steel - Novolipetsk Steel, Moscow , Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy and Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy 

 Les nouvelles frontières de l’expropriation: vers une expropriation pour cause d’utilité privée? (New Frontiers in Expropriation: Toward Expropriation for Private Use?)
Yaëll Emerich, Les nouvelles frontières de l’expropriation: vers une expropriation pour cause d’utilité privée? (2014) 48 Revue juridique Thémis de l’Université de Montréal 693., 
Yaell Emerich 
McGill University - Faculty of Law 

 Residential Communities in a Heterogeneous Society: The Case of Israel
In: Private Communities and Urban Governance: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives, A. Lehavi (Ed.), New York: Springer (2016, Forthcoming)
Amnon Lehavi 
Interdisciplinary Center Herzliyah - Radzyner School of Law 

 The Constitutional Mandate for Social Welfare – Systemic Differences and Links between Property, Land Rights and Housing Rights
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2015
AJ van der Walt and Sue Viljoen 
Stellenbosch University - Law and University of South Africa - School of Law 

 Why Restrain Alienation of Indigenous Lands?
Malcolm Lavoie 
University of Alberta Faculty of Law 

 Resisting Dignity Takings in China
Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 41, Issue 3, Forthcoming, TLI Think! Paper 08/2016
Eva Pils 
The Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London, Dickson Poon Transnational Law Institute 

 La destinée perpétuelle de la propriété entre symbolisme et aléas (The Perpetual Destiny of Ownership: Between Symbolism and Hazards)
Yaell Emerich, "La destinée perpétuelle de la propriété entre symbolisme et aléas" (2015) 45 Revue général de droit 501., 
Yaell Emerich 
McGill University - Faculty of Law 

 Comparative Overview on the Transformative Effect of Acquisitive Prescription and Adverse Possession: Morality, Legitimacy, Justice
Yaell Emerich 
McGill University - Faculty of Law 

March 1, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)