Property Law and Real Estate Commons^™

Florida's Property Rights Act: A Political Quick Fix Results In A Mixed Bag Of Tricks, Sylvia R. Lazos

Scholarly Works

This Article discusses Florida’s 1995 Property Rights Act, which grants to private property owners an alternative cause of action, outside of takings law, when they are permanently denied reasonable use of their land by regulatory actions. The Act also grants alternative procedures for property owners, outside of the judicial and administrative process. Thus, the Act does not change Florida takings law nor does it alter the substance of Florida's sometimes controversial growth management laws.

This article reviews the political climate that made passage of the Act possible and places the property rights initiative in the historical context of populist politics. …

Agenda: Regulatory Takings And Resources: What Are The Constitutional Limits?, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center, Byron R. White Center For The Study Of American Constitutional Law

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

Sponsored by the University of Colorado's Natural Resources Law Center and the Byron R. White Center for American Constitutional Study.

Conference organizers, faculty and/or moderators included University of Colorado School of Law professors David H. Getches, Lawrence J. MacDonnell, Gene R. Nichol, Jr. and Mark Squillace.

Governmental regulation for environmental protection and other important public purposes can affect the manner in which land and natural resources are developed and used. The U.S. constitution (and most state constitutions) prohibit the government from "taking" property without payment of compensation. Originally intended to apply to situations where the government physically seized private property …

Evolving Thresholds Of Nuisance And The Takings Clause, John A. Humbach

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This article reviews the historical tradition in which the common law core of nuisance has been the frequent subject of statutory additions and refinements, providing most of our modern law of land use and environmental protection. Until Lucas, the Takings Clause had not been treated as a charter establishing the courts as boards of revision to rethink and selectively veto legislative determinations in the land use field. Within the scope of “total takings,” however, Lucas has converted the Takings Clause from its original meaning and made it exactly that.

Takings Law, Lucas, And The Growth Management Act, John M. Groen, Richard M. Stephens

Seattle University Law Review

In light of Lucas and the recent constitutionally questionable Washington decisions, government entities charged with implementing the GMA may have a more difficult time avoiding takings liability than previously thought. Accordingly, this Article first seeks to clarify the modern takings analysis as refined by Lucas. Second, Washington takings precedent is contrasted with the federal approach and several key changes are suggested to make state law consistent with controlling federal precedent. Third, key aspects of the GMA are identified that can be expected to raise takings implications. By identifying potential trouble spots in the GMA now, hopefully some takings will …

"Taking" The Imperial Judiciary Seriously: Segmenting Property Interests And Judicial Revision Of Legislative Judgments, John A. Humbach

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines the diversion of the Takings Clause from its historic limited role to that of a charter for courts to second-guess legislative determinations of land-use rights and wrongs. As we shall see, prior to Lucas the Supreme Court and others following its lead have generally not regarded the Takings Clause as a warrant for reaching de novo determinations on land use problems and then substituting such judicial determinations, if different, for those of the legislature. Some notable exceptions in the Claims Court and Federal Circuit will then be considered along with the ostensible Supreme Court authority, a sentence …

Between Scylla And Charybdis: Growth Management Act Implementation That Avoids Takings And Substantive Due Process Limitations, Jeffrey M. Eustis

Seattle University Law Review

This Article begins with an overview of the GMA. It then proceeds with a summary of recent case law under the Takings Clause and substantive due process doctrine. After laying this groundwork, this Article focuses on four particular areas of growth management control and explores how local legislation implementing these areas of control would be analyzed under the Takings Clause and substantive due process. These four areas of land use regulation include: critical area protections, resource land designations, development phasing requirements for concurrency and urban growth areas, and impact fees for public facilities and services. This Article then concludes with …

Dashed "Investment-Backed" Expectations: Will The Constitution Protect Property Owners From Excesses In Implementation Of The Growth Management Act?, Elaine Spencer

Seattle University Law Review

Section I briefly discusses the basic principles of takings law as enunciated by prior cases, as well as the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, and the Washington Supreme Court's recent decisions in Sintra, Inc. v. Seattle and Robinson v. Seattle. Although the Lucas decision has received considerable publicity, it advanced the state of the law rather little. The real guidance for future decisions arising out of the GMA will come from earlier United States Supreme Court decisions and the Washington Supreme Court's decisions in Sintra, Robinson, and Lutheran …

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

Michigan Law Review

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 …

What Is Behind The "Property Rights" Debate?, John A. Humbach

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council' obviously presents issues that range far more broadly than just whether people should be allowed to build on beaches and dunes. Many observers have viewed the case as a splendid opportunity for the Supreme Court to re-establish private owner autonomy in land use decisions - to cut down, perhaps drastically, on elected legislatures' traditional power to protect the environment by regulating uses of land. Behind the "property rights" debate is the question of whether states and communities really ought to have the power that they have traditionally had to control the development and patterns …

Footprints In The Shifting Sands Of The Isle Of Palms: A Practical Analysis Of Regulatory Takings Cases, John R. Nolon

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

It was not until the last day of the term, June 29, 1992, that the Court decided Lucas. By that time, interest could not have been greater. At issue was the validity of a regulation that prohibited all permanent development of the plaintiff's two beachfront lots. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the regulation by a 3-2 margin because it prevented a “great public harm.” The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that determination and remanded the case to determine whether South Carolina's common law of nuisance could prohibit the construction of single-family housing on the lots. The fractured Court delivered an …

Regulatory Taking: A Contract Approach, Ross B. Lipsker, Rebecca L. Heldt

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article begins by defining the parameters of the fifth amendment's taking clause. The Article then reviews the various tests used in determining whether governmental action constitutes a taking, and discusses the recent Supreme Court decisions within the framework of case law as it has evolved since the Court's 1922 landmark decision, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon. Finally, the Article suggests a formula based on well-established contract principles for analyzing the impact of land use regulation on private property interests.

Agenda: Water As A Public Resource: Emerging Rights And Obligations, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations (Summer Conference, June 1-3)

Conference organizers and/or faculty included University of Colorado School of Law professors Lawrence J. MacDonnell, David H. Getches, and Charles F. Wilkinson.

This conference focused on the legal rights associated with a broad range of public uses and interests in water including recreation, fish and wildlife protection, and water quality. Evolving legal areas such as the public trust doctrine, instream flow laws, federal reserved rights, and wetlands protection were discussed.

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations considered the extension of the public trust doctrine to areas previously not covered by this concept, as well as developments in …

Economic Due Process And The Takings Clause, John A. Humbach

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The discussion which follows will examine the new verbalizations repeatedly employed in Supreme Court takings decisions of the past decade and the Court's enlistment of the just compensation requirement as a basis for undertaking substantive review of legislation. As an introduction, the distinctive historical roles and roots of the substantive due process and just compensation requirements will be reviewed.

Constitutional Limits On The Power To Take Private Property: Public Purpose And Public Use, John A. Humbach

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The rights/freedoms dichotomy tacitly permeates Supreme Court ‘takings' jurisprudence, and it has an explanatory power which extends to virtually all ‘takings' cases decided by the Court. Its explanatory power does not, however, extend to the relatively few cases which involve the taking of ‘rights' for purely private use, that is rearrangements of existing private property rights, as opposed to takings for use by the government or its designees in some public service function. Because rearranging the existing pattern of private ownership takes ‘rights' and not mere ‘freedoms,’ we might expect, according to the rights/freedoms pattern, that the Court would uniformly …

The National Park System And Development On Private Lands: Opportunities And Tools To Protect Park Resources, Michael Mantell

External Development Affecting the National Parks: Preserving "The Best Idea We Ever Had" (September 14-16)

34 pages.

Contains footnotes.

Searching For The Status Quo, Jeremy Paul

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Unifying Theory For The Just-Compensation Cases: Takings, Regulation And Public Use, John A. Humbach

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This discussion begins with some remarks concerning the concept of property as a general matter. It will then consider briefly an approach to the problem which, though promising and advanced, nevertheless falls short of achieving an internally consistent, unifying theory. Following this introduction, an attempt will be made to specify the two distinctive conceptual components of property interests on whose difference the cases seem to turn, and then to demonstrate the suitability of this conceptual distinction as the foundation for a coherent theory of the law.

Designating Areas Unsuitable For Surface Coal Mining, Mark S. Squillace

Publications

No abstract provided.

Recent Developments

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Benefits Vs. Money As Compensation In A Partial Taking., Shelby A. Jordan

St. Mary's Law Journal

This article compares and contrasts two different procedures courts use to ascertain a property's fair market value in an eminent domain proceeding. Twenty-seven states, the majority view, support the proposition that special but not general benefits may be deducted from any damages alleged to the remainder. However, neither special nor general benefits may be deducted from the value of the land taken. On the other hand, minority jurisdictions allow benefits to be set off from the total compensation awarded. These jurisdictions refuse to draw an artificial line between compensation for damages to the remainder and compensation for the land taken. …

The Airport Noise Problem And Airport Zoning, Erwin Seago

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taking Of Equitable Easements For Public Use, Edgar N. Durfee

Articles

The case of Flynn v. New York &c Railway Co., decided by the Court of Appeals of New York in April last, involves the right of an owner of land to which is appurtenant a so-called equitable easement, arising under a covenant restricting the use of other land, to compensation upon the taking of the servient land for a public use inconsistent with the restriction. A tract of land was laid out in accordance with a plan, and all, lots therein were sold and conveyed by deeds containing covenants, inter alia, that, "No building or structure for any business purpose …