Law Commons^™

A Remedy On Paper: The Role Of Law In The Failure Of City Planning In New Haven, 1907-1913, Mark Fenster

Mark Fenster

Part I of this paper provides an overview of the dominant conservative legal doctrines and governing practices that limited planners' goals and strategies in New Haven during the period from 1907 through 1913, and that planning advocates sought to change. Part II provides a narrative of the New Haven planning movement prior to the publication of a 1910 report by Cass Gilbert, a well-known New York-based architect, and Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., a nationally recognized city planner, on how best to improve New Haven's physical environment and infrastructure. To illustrate the difficulties facing the nascent planning movement in New Haven, …

A Framework For Understanding Property Regulation And Land Use Control From A Dynamic Perspective, Donald J. Kochan

Donald J. Kochan

Rathkopf's The Law Of Zoning & Planning, Sara Bronin, Dwight Merriam

Sara C. Bronin

Provides detailed coverage of zoning and planning with case law, including constitutional and statutory limitations on government zoning and planning powers, remedies for wrongful land use regulation, rezoning issues, and subdivision restrictions. Discusses tort actions and governmental immunities, especially beneficial in litigation, and provides extensive footnoting for state-specific referencing. Examines evolving issues such as: floodplain and wetlands regulation, growth management, regulation of hazardous wastes, historic preservation laws, variances, building permits, housing laws, restrictions on manufactured housing, private covenants, regulation of adult entertainment businesses, and regulation of religious land use. Provides procedural information, detailed index, and Table of Cases.

Pretextual Takings: Of Private Developers, Local Governments, And Impermissible Favoritism, Daniel B. Kelly

Daniel B Kelly

Since Kelo v. City of New London, the preferred litigation strategy for challenging a condemnation that benefits a private party is to allege that the taking is pretextual. This Article contends that, although pretextual takings are socially undesirable, the current judicial test for identifying such takings is problematic. Yet an alternative, intent-based test might be impracticable, as well as underinclusive: condemnors often have mixed motives, particularly when confronted with a firm's credible threat to relocate. Instead, the Article develops a framework that emphasizes informational differences between local governments and private developers. When the government lacks information regarding the optimal site …

Irresponsible Legislating: Reeling In The Aftermath Of Kelo, Patricia E. Salkin

Patricia E. Salkin

No abstract provided.

U.S. Supreme Court’S 2004 Term Includes Significant Land Use Decisions With A Trilogy Of Takings Cases, Patricia E. Salkin

Patricia E. Salkin

No abstract provided.

Community Redevelopment, Public Use, And Eminent Domain, Patricia E. Salkin, Lora A. Lucero

Patricia E. Salkin

Published just weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court handed down their controversial decision on Kelo v. City of New London in 2005, this article, in correctly predicting the outcome of the Supreme Court opinion, explores in Section I how the concept of what constitutes a public use has evolved over the decades from traditionally accepted uses such as public roads, buildings (e.g., government buildings and schools), and utilities to urban redevelopment. It explains how the broad concepts of community redevelopment have been stretched to encompass needed economic development projects that promise jobs, tax revenue, and other public benefits similar to …

"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 …