Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Kelo V. City Of New London: Supreme Court Refuses To Hamstring Local Governments, James C. Smith
Kelo V. City Of New London: Supreme Court Refuses To Hamstring Local Governments, James C. Smith
Popular Media
The Court's decision last term in Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (2005), has drawn heavy fire, most of it unmerited. By the narrowest of margins, the Court held that the city could take single-family homes to develop an office park and to provide parking or retail services for visitors to an existing state park and marina. Many observers thought the Court would take this opportunity to display its "conservative" activism by reining in the power of eminent domain. After all, the Court has grown increasingly protective of property rights during the past two decades. See …
Visions Of Guadalupe: Traces Of The Ghost Panel, Gerald Torres
Visions Of Guadalupe: Traces Of The Ghost Panel, Gerald Torres
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The Uselessness Of Public Use, Abraham Bell, Gideon Parchomovsky
The Uselessness Of Public Use, Abraham Bell, Gideon Parchomovsky
All Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. City of New London has been denounced by legal scholars from the entire political spectrum and given rise to numerous legislative proposals to reverse Kelo's deferential interpretation of the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and instead, limit the use of eminent domain when taken property is transferred to private hands. In this Essay we argue that the criticisms of Kelo are ill-conceived and misguided. They are based on a narrow analysis of eminent domain that fails to take into account the full panoply of government powers with respect to property. Given …
The Neglected Political Economy Of Eminent Domain, Nicole Stelle Garnett
The Neglected Political Economy Of Eminent Domain, Nicole Stelle Garnett
Journal Articles
This Article challenges a foundational assumption about eminent domain - namely, that owners are systematically undercompensated because they receive only fair market value for their property. The Article shows that, in fact, scholars have overstated the undercompensation problem because they have focused on the compensation required by the Constitution, rather than on the actual mechanics of eminent domain. The Article examines three ways that Takers (i.e., non-judicial actors in the eminent domain process) minimize undercompensation. First, Takers may avoid taking high-subjective-value properties. Second, Takers frequently must pay more compensation in the form of relocation assistance. Third, Takers and property owners …
Regulating Land Use In A Constitutional Shadow: The Institutional Contexts Of Exactions, Mark Fenster
Regulating Land Use In A Constitutional Shadow: The Institutional Contexts Of Exactions, Mark Fenster
UF Law Faculty Publications
The regulatory takings doctrine, the Supreme Court declared in Lingle v. Chevron, concerns the effects of a regulation on the incidents of property ownership. It serves as a constitutional protection against regulations that impose the functional equivalent to a classic taking of private property (an appropriation by the state or an ouster), and it requires compensation for owners who are subject to such regulations. Just as significant as declaring what the regulatory takings doctrine is, theCourt in Lingle also declared what it is not: it is not a judicial check onthe validity or reasonableness of a regulation that …