Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Eminent Domain Legislation Post-Kelo: A State Of The States, Patricia E. Salkin
Eminent Domain Legislation Post-Kelo: A State Of The States, Patricia E. Salkin
Scholarly Works
In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the use of eminent domain for economic development is a permissible“public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The decision proved controversial, as many feared that it would benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Shortly thereafter, numerous states introduced legislation limiting the use of eminent domain.This article surveys those state initiatives that have been signed into law following the Court’s decision in Kelo.
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 …
Restoring Property Rights In Washington: Regulatory Takings Compensation Inspired By Oregon's Measure 37, Kelly Michelle Kelley
Restoring Property Rights In Washington: Regulatory Takings Compensation Inspired By Oregon's Measure 37, Kelly Michelle Kelley
Seattle University Law Review
Part II of this Comment provides a background of regulatory takings jurisprudence, outlining both the U.S. Supreme Court's and Washington courts' respective analyses of regulatory takings challenges under the takings clauses of both the U.S. and Washington Constitutions. Part III discusses the threshold compensation statutes that have been enacted by four states in an effort to remedy the problem of regulatory takings. Part IV examines Oregon's Measure 37 and the lawsuit that validated its constitutionality. Part V analyzes Washington's proposed property rights measure, Initiative 933, and argues that Washington needs a regulatory takings compensation statute. Finally, Part VI concludes that …