Land Use Law Commons^™

Takings Federalization, Gerald S. Dickinson

Articles

Federal constitutional law exerts an outsized role and influence over state constitutional law. In takings, Supreme Court jurisprudence has dominated state court interpretations of analogous state constitutional takings provisions. This does not mean, however, that the Supreme Court always leads and the state courts always follow. At times, the opposite is true. There is, indeed, an underappreciated and under addressed role reversal in which the Supreme Court follows the lead of state courts. State takings doctrines have, on limited occasions, influenced federal takings jurisprudence. This federalization of takings is a distinct feature of judicial dual sovereignty where the Supreme Court …

Federal Courts And Takings Litigation, Ann Woolhandler, Julia D. Mahoney

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article first gives an overview of the role of the federal courts in takings claims over time, with a view to providing a more complete picture than that supplied by focusing either on the Lochner/New Deal-era dichotomy or on the advent of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (current § 1983). It traces the fairly robust role of the federal courts in protecting property under a nonconfiscation norm both before and during the Lochner era. It also points out that the legislative history of the 1871 Civil Rights Act does not support a firm conclusion that Congress intended takings …

Takings Localism, Nestor M. Davisdson, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

Conflicts over “sanctuary” cities, minimum wage laws, and gender-neutral bathrooms have brought the problematic landscape of contemporary state preemption of local governance to national attention. This Article contends that more covert, although equally robust, state interference can be found in property, with significant consequences for our understanding of takings law.

Takings jurisprudence looks to the states to mediate most tensions between individual property rights and community needs, as the takings federalism literature recognizes. Takings challenges, however, often involve local governments. If the doctrine privileges the democratic process to resolve most takings claims, then, that critical process is a largely local …

Taking It Too Far: Growth Management And The Limits To Land-Use Regulation In Maine, Michael A. Duddy

Maine Law Review

In 1989 Maine enacted the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act. The Act's legislative findings declared that “ the State has a vital interest in ensuring that a comprehensive system of land-use planning and growth management is established as quickly as possible.” However, whenever the state exercises its police power to regulate private land use, it faces a constitutional limit as to how far it can go. When the land-use restriction exceeds that limit, a regulatory taking occurs. This Comment argues that the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act, as it is being interpreted and implemented by state …

Taking It Too Far: Growth Management And The Limits To Land-Use Regulation In Maine, Michael A. Duddy

Maine Law Review

In 1989 Maine enacted the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act. The Act's legislative findings declared that “ the State has a vital interest in ensuring that a comprehensive system of land-use planning and growth management is established as quickly as possible.” However, whenever the state exercises its police power to regulate private land use, it faces a constitutional limit as to how far it can go. When the land-use restriction exceeds that limit, a regulatory taking occurs. This Comment argues that the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act, as it is being interpreted and implemented by state …

A Requiem For Regulatory Takings: Reclaiming Eminent Domain For Constitutional Property Claims, Danaya C. Wright

Danaya C. Wright

For the past forty years, the United States Supreme Court has embraced the doctrine of regulatory takings, despite being unable to provide any coherent and reliable guidance on when a regulation goes so far as to require compensation. But Justice Thomas's admission in Murr v. Wisconsin (2017) that there is no real historical basis for the Court's regulatory takings jurisprudence offers a chance to reconsider the doctrine anew. Looking back to Justice Holmes's prophetic statement in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, that a regulation can go too far and require an exercise of eminent domain to sustain it, I argue …

State Constitutional General Welfare Doctrine, Gerald S. Dickinson

Articles

It is black-letter law that the U.S. Supreme Court’s takings doctrine presupposes exercises of eminent domain are in pursuit of valid public uses that require just compensation. But, neither federal doctrine nor the text of the Takings Clause offers any additional constraints. The story of the Supreme Court’s takings jurisprudence is, in other words, incomplete and deserves reexamination. However, the usual protagonists, such as the Supreme Court or federal courts, are not central to this Article’s reexamination. Instead, this Article’s narrative is federalism, its characters are state courts, and its script is state constitutions.

In the post-Kelo v. New London …

A Requiem For Regulatory Takings: Reclaiming Eminent Domain For Constitutional Property Claims, Danaya C. Wright

UF Law Faculty Publications

For the past forty years, the United States Supreme Court has embraced the doctrine of regulatory takings, despite being unable to provide any coherent and reliable guidance on when a regulation goes so far as to require compensation. But Justice Thomas's admission in Murr v. Wisconsin (2017) that there is no real historical basis for the Court's regulatory takings jurisprudence offers a chance to reconsider the doctrine anew. Looking back to Justice Holmes's prophetic statement in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, that a regulation can go too far and require an exercise of eminent domain to sustain it, I argue …

Martin V. United States, Mitch L. Werbell V

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In Martin v. United States, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed a Fifth Amendment regulatory takings and exaction claim for want of ripeness when the claimant failed to apply for a permit, which would have allowed for an assessment of the cost of compliance with governmentally imposed requirements. By finding the claim unripe, the court stood firm on the historical view that federal courts may only adjudicate land-use regulatory takings and inverse condemnation claims on the merits after a regulating entity has made a final decision. However, jurisprudential evolution of the ripeness doctrine and judicial review of takings claims may …

Are Beach Boundaries Enforceable? Real-Time Locational Uncertainty And The Right To Exclude, Josh Eagle

Faculty Publications

Over the past few decades, landowners have tried to use the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to fully privatize the upper, dry-sand part of the beach. If these efforts were to succeed, there would be a host of negative consequences, and not just for surfers. In most of the states in which beaches are economically important, including California, Florida, New Jersey and Texas, privatized dry sand would mean little to no public access at times when the public, wet-sand part of the beach is submerged, that is, in the hours immediately before and after high tides. Decreased beach use would …

Florida Rock Industries, Inc. V. United States: Tipping The Scales In Favor Of Private Property Rights At The Public's Expense, Susan E. Spokes University Of Maine School Of Law

Maine Law Review

In Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. United States the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the denial of a federal wetlands permit under section 1344 of the Clean Water Act may constitute a compensable taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court remanded the case to the Federal Court of Claims to determine the value of the property remaining after the permit denial, while warning the trial court that the existing record did not support a finding of the loss of all economically viable use of the property. The Federal …

Federalism, Convergence, And Divergence In Constitutional Property, Gerald S. Dickinson

Articles

Federal law exerts a gravitational force on state actors, resulting in widespread conformity to federal law and doctrine at the state level. This has been well recognized in the literature, but scholars have paid little attention to this phenomenon in the context of constitutional property. Traditionally, state takings jurisprudence—in both eminent domain and regulatory takings—has strongly gravitated towards the Supreme Court’s takings doctrine. This long history of federal-state convergence, however, was disrupted by the Court’s controversial public use decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In the wake of Kelo, states resisted the Court’s validation of the …

One Parcel Plus One Parcel Equals A "Parcel As A Whole" Murr V. Wisconsin's Fluid Calculations For Regulatory Takings, Shelby D. Green

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The Court's most recent major property law case, Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017), tackles one of the thorny, recurring issues in regulatory takings jurisprudence: what is the proper “denominator” to use in determining whether a government regulation has so greatly diminished the economic value of a parcel of land that it effects a taking? More specifically, Murr looked at what constitutes the “parcel as a whole” when a landowner holds title to two contiguous lots. Should a court assess the economic impact on the value of each lot separately or the impact on the value of the …

Written Testimony Of Gerald S. Dickinson For The U.S. Senate Hearing On Fencing Along The Southwest Border (Senate Committee On Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs), Gerald S. Dickinson

Testimony

It is with great pleasure that I submit this written testimony at the request of the Office of the Ranking Member, Senator McCaskill. I am pleased that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is devoting its April 4, 2017 hearing to an examination of efforts to secure the southwest border through the construction of a wall. Further, as a law professor who writes and teaches in the areas of constitutional property and land use, I take great interest in the committee's focus on the legal authorities related to the wall construction along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Insuring Takings Claims, Christopher Serkin

Christopher Serkin

Local governments typically insure themselves against all kinds of losses, from property damage to legal liability. For small- and medium-sized governments, this usually means purchasing insurance from private insurers or participating in municipal risk pools. Insurance for regulatory takings claims, however, is generally unavailable. This previously unnoticed gap in municipal insurance coverage could lead risk averse local governments to underregulate and underenforce existing regulations where property owners threaten to bring takings claims. This seemingly technical observation turns out to have profound implications for theoretical accounts of the Takings Clause that focus on government regulatory incentives. This Article explores the impact …

On The Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Of Lucas: Making Or Breaking The Takings Claim, Carol Brown

Law Faculty Publications

In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the United States Supreme Court established the premier categorical regulatory takings standard with certain limited exceptions. The Lucas rule establishes that private property owners are entitled to compensation for a taking under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause when a government regulation “denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land.” Today, Lucas remains the controlling law on categorical regulatory takings. But in application, how much does Lucas still matter?

My review of more than 1,600 cases in state and federal court reveals only twenty-seven cases in twenty-five years in which courts found …

Partial Takings, Abraham Bell, Gideon Parchomovsky

All Faculty Scholarship

Partial takings allow the government to expropriate the parts of an asset it needs, leaving the owner the remainder. Both vital and common, partial takings present unique challenges to the standard rules of eminent domain. Partial takings may result in the creation of suboptimal, and even unusable, parcels. Additionally, partial takings create assessment problems that do not arise when parcels are taken as a whole. Finally, partial takings engender opportunities for inefficient strategic behavior on the part of the government after the partial taking has been carried out. Current jurisprudence fails to resolve these problems and can even exacerbate them. …

A Hobbesian Bundle Of Lockean Sticks: The Property Rights Legacy Of Justice Scalia, J. Peter Byrne

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

No modern United States Supreme Court Justice has stimulated more thought and debate about the constitutional meaning of property than Antonin Scalia. This essay evaluates his efforts to change the prevailing interpretation of the Takings Clause. Scalia sought to ground it in clear rules embodying a reactionary defense of private owners’ prerogatives against environmental and land use regulation. Ultimately, Scalia aimed to authorize federal judicial oversight of state property law developments, whether through legislative or judicial innovation. In hindsight, he stands in a long tradition of conservative judges using property law as a constitutional baseline by which to restrain regulation.

Insuring Takings Claims, Christopher Serkin

Northwestern University Law Review

Local governments typically insure themselves against all kinds of losses, from property damage to legal liability. For small- and medium-sized governments, this usually means purchasing insurance from private insurers or participating in municipal risk pools. Insurance for regulatory takings claims, however, is generally unavailable. This previously unnoticed gap in municipal insurance coverage could lead risk averse local governments to underregulate and underenforce existing regulations where property owners threaten to bring takings claims. This seemingly technical observation turns out to have profound implications for theoretical accounts of the Takings Clause that focus on government regulatory incentives. This Article explores the impact …

The New Nuisance: An Antidote To Wetland Loss, Sprawl, And Global Warming, Christine A. Klein

Christine A. Klein

Marking the fifteenth anniversary of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council -- the modern U.S. Supreme Court's seminal regulatory takings decision -- this Article surveys Lucas's impact upon regulations that restrict wetland filling, sprawling development, and the emission of greenhouse gases. The Lucas Court set forth a new categorical rule of governmental liability for regulations that prohibit all economically beneficial use of land, but also established a new defense that draws upon the states' common law of nuisance and property. Unexpectedly, that defense has taken on a life of its own -- forming what this Article calls the new …

Climate Exactions, J. Peter Byrne, Kathryn A. Zyla

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Access Vs. Private Property: The Struggle Of Coastal Landowners To Keep The Public Off Their Land, James D. Donahue

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Scalia Wasn't Such An Originalist, Michael Lewyn

Scholarly Works

Although Justice Scalia generally described himself as an originalist, his opinion in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council rejected originalist arguments. Why? This article suggests that pre-Lucas precedent and the ambiguity of the historical record might justify his methodology.

When Scalia Wasn't Such An Originalist, Michael Lewyn

Michael E Lewyn

2016 Planetizen.Com Blog Posts, Michael Lewyn

Michael E Lewyn

A Model Wetlands Protection Ordinance: Legal Considerations, Mary Jane Angelo

Mary Jane Angelo

Many counties in Florida are currently in the process of developing new wetlands protection ordinances, or revising old ones. While public policy supports strict regulation of activities in wetlands, many counties are reluctant to adopt restrictive ordinances because of the potential for large damages awards if the regulations are later found to be temporary takings. Recent Supreme Court case law has upheld the payment of compensation as an appropriate remedy for overly restrictive land use regulations compounding the fears of local governments. This paper summarizes the legal implications of a Model Wetlands Protection Ordinance developed by the author. In particular, …

Exactions For The Future, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Timothy M. Mulvaney

New development commonly contributes to projected infrastructural demands caused by multiple parties or amplifies the impacts of anticipated natural hazards. At times, these impacts only can be addressed through coordinated actions over a lengthy period. In theory, the ability of local governments to attach conditions, or “exactions,” to discretionary land use permits can serve as one tool to accomplish this end. Unlike traditional exactions that regularly respond to demonstrably measurable, immediate development harms, these “exactions for the future” — exactions responsive to cumulative anticipated future harms — admittedly can present land assembly concerns and involve inherently uncertain long-range government forecasting. …

Proposed Exactions, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Timothy M. Mulvaney

In the abstract, the site-specific ability to issue conditional approvals offers local governments the flexible option of permitting a development proposal while simultaneously requiring the applicant to offset the project’s external impacts. However, the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed the exercise of this option in Nollan and Dolan by establishing a constitutional takings framework unique to exaction disputes. This exaction takings construct has challenged legal scholars on several fronts for the better part of the past two decades. For one, Nollan and Dolan place a far greater burden on the government in justifying exactions it attaches to a development approval than …

Exactions For The Future, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Timothy M. Mulvaney

New development commonly contributes to projected infrastructural demands caused by multiple parties or amplifies the impacts of anticipated natural hazards. At times, these impacts only can be addressed through coordinated actions over a lengthy period. In theory, the ability of local governments to attach conditions, or “exactions,” to discretionary land use permits can serve as one tool to accomplish this end. Unlike traditional exactions that regularly respond to demonstrably measurable, immediate development harms, these “exactions for the future” — exactions responsive to cumulative anticipated future harms — admittedly can present land assembly concerns and involve inherently uncertain long-range government forecasting. …

Acquiring Land Through Eminent Domain: Justifications, Limitations, And Alternatives, Daniel Kelly

Daniel B Kelly

The primary functional justifications for eminent domain involve bargaining problems, including the holdout problem, the bilateral monopoly problem and other transaction costs, as well as the existence of externalities. The holdout problem is particularly noteworthy, and this chapter analyzes three types of holdouts, depending on whether the failure in bargaining is the result of strategic behavior among owners, the presence of a large number of owners or a single owner who is unwilling to sell because of a highly idiosyncratic valuation. Although eminent domain solves any potential bargaining problems by transferring land directly from existing owners to the government, eminent …