Law Commons^™

Property-As-Society, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Timothy M. Mulvaney

Modern regulatory takings disputes present a key battleground for competing conceptions of property. This Article offers the following account of the three leading theories: a libertarian view sees property as creating a sphere of individual freedom and control (property-as-liberty); a pecuniary view sees property as a tool of economic investment (property-as-investment); and a progressive view sees property as serving a wide range of evolving communal values that include, but are not limited to, those advanced under both the libertarian and pecuniary conceptions (property-as-society). Against this backdrop, the Article offers two contentions. First, on normative grounds, it asserts that the conception …

A Critical Reexamination Of The Takings Jurisprudence, Glynn S. Lunney Jr

Glynn Lunney

To provide some insight into the nature of these disagreements, and to suggest a possible solution to the compensation issue, this article undertakes a critical reexamination of the takings jurisprudence. It focuses on the two bases which the modem Court has articulated as support for its resolution of the compensation issue: (1) the articulated purpose of using the just compensation requirement "to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens"; and (2) the early case law. Beginning with the Court's first struggles with the compensation issue in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, this article traces …

On Bargaining For Development, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Timothy M. Mulvaney

In his recent article, Bargaining for Development Post-Koontz, Professor Sean Nolon concludes that the Supreme Court’s recent ill-defined expansion of the circumstances in which land use permit conditions might give rise to takings liability in Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District will chill the state’s willingness to communicate with permit applicants about mitigation measures. He sets out five courses that government entities might take in this confusing and chilling post-Koontz world, each of which leaves something to be desired from the perspective of both developers and the public more generally.

This responsive essay proceeds in two parts. First, …

Progressive Property Moving Forward, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Timothy M. Mulvaney

In his thought-provoking recent article, “The Ambition and Transformative Potential of Progressive Property,” Ezra Rosser contends that, in the course of laying the foundations of a theory grounded in property’s social nature, scholars who participated in the renowned 2009 Cornell symposium on progressive property have “glossed over” property law’s continuing conquest of American Indian lands and the inheritance of privileges that stem from property-based discrimination against African Americans. I fully share Rosser’s concerns regarding past and continuing racialized acquisition and distribution, if not always his characterization of the select progressive works he critiques. Where I focus in this essay, though, …

Legislative Exactions And Progressive Property, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Timothy M. Mulvaney

Exactions — a term used to describe certain conditions that are attached to land-use permits issued at the government’s discretion — ostensibly oblige property owners to internalize the costs of the expected infrastructural, environmental, and social harms resulting from development. This Article explores how proponents of progressive conceptions of property might respond to the open question of whether legislative exactions should be subject to the same level of judicial scrutiny to which administrative exactions are subject in constitutional takings cases. It identifies several first-order reasons to support the idea of immunizing legislative exactions from heightened takings scrutiny. However, it suggests …

The [̶T̶A̶K̶I̶N̶G̶S̶] Keepings Clause: An Analysis Of Framing Effects From Labeling Constitutional Rights, Donald J. Kochan

Donald J. Kochan

When Scalia Wasn't Such An Originalist, Michael Lewyn

Michael E Lewyn

Foreground Principles, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Timothy M. Mulvaney

The U.S. Supreme Court has declared for decades that, for Takings Clause purposes, property interests are not created by the Constitution but rather are determined by “existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.” However, the Court has exhibited a strong normative preference for a certain type of independent source — “background principles” of the common law — over others, namely state statutory and administrative law. This Article calls this preference into question. The Article develops a model to demonstrate the four basic categories, or quadrants, of takings decisions that extensive reliance on the …

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. …

The Classical Constitution, Herbert Hovenkamp

Herbert Hovenkamp

Conservative and libertarian constitutional writers have often pined for return to a "classical" understanding of American federal and state Constitutions. "Classical" does not necessarily mean "originalist" or "interpretivist." Some classical views, such as the attempt to revitalize Lochner-style economic due process, find little support in the text of the federal Constitution or any of the contemporary state constitutions. Rather, constitutional meaning is thought to lie in a background link between constitution formation and classical statecraft. The core theory rests on the assumption of a social contract to which everyone in some initial position agreed. Like any contract, it would …

Tahoe's Requiem: The Death Of The Scalian View Of Property And Justice, Laura S. Underkuffler

Laura S. Underkuffler

No abstract provided.

Inclusionary Eminent Domain, Gerald S. Dickinson

Gerald S. Dickinson

This article proposes a paradigm shift in takings law, namely “inclusionary eminent domain.” This new normative concept – paradoxical in nature – rethinks eminent domain as an inclusionary land assembly framework that is equipped with multiple tools to help guide municipalities, private developers and communities construct or preserve affordable housing developments. Analogous to inclusionary zoning, inclusionary eminent domain helps us think about how to fix the “exclusionary eminent domain” phenomenon of displacing low-income families by assembling and negotiating the use of land – prior to, during or after condemnation proceedings – to accommodate affordable housing where condemnation threatens to decrease …

U.S. Supreme Court Hands Two Big Wins To Municipal Governments In 2001-2002 Term, Patricia E. Salkin

Patricia E. Salkin

No abstract provided.

Michigan Supreme Court Overturns Landmark Eminent Domain Case, Patricia E. Salkin

Patricia E. Salkin

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Takes On Tricky ‘Takings Clause’, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

Ripe Standing Vines And The Jurisprudential Tasting Of Matured Legal Wines – And Law & Bananas: Property And Public Choice In The Permitting Process, Donald J. Kochan

Donald J. Kochan

From produce to wine, we only consume things when they are ready. The courts are no different. That concept of “readiness” is how courts address cases and controversies as well. Justiciability doctrines, particularly ripeness, have a particularly important role in takings challenges to permitting decisions. The courts largely hold that a single permit denial does not give them enough information to evaluate whether the denial is in violation of law. As a result of this jurisprudential reality, regulators with discretion have an incentive to use their power to extract rents from those that need their permission. Non-justiciability of permit denials …

Palazzolo, The Public Trust, And The Property Owner’S Reasonable Expectations: Takings And The South Carolina Marsh Island Bridge Debate, Erin Ryan

Erin Ryan

South Carolina recently promulgated new guidelines regulating the State’s consideration of requests by private marsh island owners to build bridges for vehicular access through publicly owned marsh and tidelands. Many thousands of these islands hug the South Carolina coast, but they are surrounded by tidelands subject to South Carolina’s formidable public trust doctrine, which obligates the State to manage submerged lands and waterways for the benefit of the public. This piece evaluates the relationship between the public trust doctrine and the takings subtext to the debate over the new guidelines – a relationship that has become particularly interesting in the …

Unintended Consequences: Eminent Domain And Affordable Housing, Matthew J. Parlow

Matthew Parlow

Zoning, Taking, & Dealing: The Problems And Promise Of Bargaining In Land Use Planning, Erin Ryan

Erin Ryan

Municipal land use bargaining may imply as many problems as it heralds promise, but it is widely acknowleged as the universal language of land use planning. Planners and scholars agree that public-private negotiation plays a central role in the vast majority of local land use decision-making. At least in part, this is a result of the peculiar attributes of the resource at issue. Land is, perhaps, the ultimate nonfungible. Each parcel of land possesses unique characteristics not only in its physical attributes, but also by virtue of its location, and its proximity to other unique parcels. Moreover, land uses implicate …

"Public Use" And The Independent Judiciary: Condemnation In An Interest-Group Perspective, Donald J. Kochan

Donald J. Kochan

This Article reexamines the doctrine of public use under the Takings Clause and its ability to impede takings for private use through an application of public choice theory. It argues that the judicial validation of interest-group capture of the condemnation power through a relaxed public use standard in Takings Clause review can be explained by interest group politics and public choice theory and by institutional tendencies inherent in the independent judiciary. Legislators can sell the eminent domain power to special interests for almost any use, promising durability in the deal given the low probability that the judiciary will invalidate it …