Property Law and Real Estate Commons^™

The Power To Exclude And The Power To Expel, Donald J. Smythe

Faculty Scholarship

Property laws have far-reaching implications for the way people live and the opportunities they and their children will have. They also have important consequences for property developers and businesses, both large and small. It is not surprising, therefore, that modern developments in property law have been so strongly influenced by political pressures. Unfortunately, those with the most economic resources and political power have had the most telling influences on the way property laws have developed in the United States during the twentieth century. This article introduces a normal form game – I call it the “Not-In-My-Backyard Game” – to illustrate …

A Prudential Take On A Prudential Takings Doctrine, Katherine Mims Crocker

Michigan Law Review Online

The Supreme Court is set to decide a case requesting reconsideration of a doctrine that has long bedeviled constitutional litigants and commentators. The case is Knick v. Township of Scott, and the doctrine is the “ripeness” rule from Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank that plaintiffs seeking to raise takings claims under the Fifth Amendment must pursue state-created remedies first—the so-called “compensation prong” (as distinguished from a separate “takings prong”). This Essay argues that to put the compensation prong in the best light possible, the Court should view the requirement as a “prudential” rule rather than (as it …

When Deciding Whether To Allow A Taking Of Property We Need To Ask What We Want Property Rights To Do, Douglas C. Harris

All Faculty Publications

In recognition of the dangers inherent to a regime that enables a majority of owners to terminate the individual property interests of a dissenting minority, the Strata Property Act requires that strata corporations secure court confirmation of dissolution votes. Not surprisingly, the shift to a lower dissolution threshold, the rapidly rising land values in British Columbia’s urban centres, and the increased costs of maintaining aging buildings, have precipitated a growing number of dissolution votes and a steady flow of applications to the British Columbia Supreme Court (BCSC) to confirm the votes.

A Prudential Take On A Prudential Takings Doctrine, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is set to decide a case requesting reconsideration of a doctrine that has long bedeviled constitutional litigants and commentators. The case is Knick v. Township of Scott, and the doctrine is the “ripeness” rule from Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank that plaintiffs seeking to raise takings claims under the Fifth Amendment must pursue state-created remedies first — the so-called “compensation prong” (as distinguished from a separate “takings prong”). This Essay argues that to put the compensation prong in the best light possible, the Court should view the requirement as a “prudential” rule rather than …

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. V. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: The Reemergence Of Penn Central And A Healthy Reluctance To Craft Per Se Regulatory Takings Rules, Philip R. Saucier

Maine Law Review

In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the Supreme Court held that a moratorium on development imposed during the process of devising a comprehensive land use plan did not constitute a per se taking of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution. The scope of Tahoe-Sierra, and thus its ultimate impact on Supreme Court takings jurisprudence, had been severely narrowed and redefined by the courts since the landowners first alleged a taking over fifteen years before the issue was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. It is important to note that this …

Kelo V. City Of New London-Wrongly Decided And A Missed Opportunity For Principled Line Drawing With Respect To Eminent Domain Takings, Orlando E. Delogu

Maine Law Review

No eminent domain taking case in the last twenty-five years has excited the level of interest, attention, and debate as has Kelo v. City of New London. The Supreme Court’s decision has not quelled that debate. If anything the stridency, the emotional tenor, of the debate has increased. And in the few months since the decision came down, several dozen states (in the absence of any meaningful federal limitation on what constitutes “public use”) have proposed statutes or constitutional amendments that would limit their exercise of eminent domain (taking) powers. There is even talk of federal legislation to temper, to …

A Proposal For Establishing Specialized Federal And State "Takings Courts", John Martinez

Maine Law Review

Takings doctrine is a mess. Let's just accept that and establish specialized federal and state "takings courts" to adjudicate takings claims. Takings claims arise when governmental conduct is alleged to detrimentally affect private property. Adjudication of takings claims may initially seem straightforward: the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause, as well as analogous state constitutional provisions, plainly provide that the government shall not take private property for public use without just compensation. In 1978, the United States Supreme Court confessed that takings analysis is hopelessly ad hoc. Decades later, in 2005, the Court abrogated a test for takings that it had …

Murr V. Wisconsin, Nathan A. Burke

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In Murr v. Wisconsin, the Court redefined how to determine private property for a regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment. Previously, courts have primarily relied on state property principles to determine the relevant unit of property for a regulatory takings claim. However, in this case, the Court adopted a three-factor standard to determine the landowner’s reasonable expectations regarding the treatment of their property. By relying on these factors rather than only on state laws, the Court created a litigation-specific definition of property that could potentially differ from state property boundaries. The three-factor standard may also give the government an …

The Illusion Of Fiscal Illusion In Regulatory Takings, Bethany R. Berger

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Stand-Off: The Wisconsin State Legislature V. Milwaukee Public Schools And Takings Of Public Property By Public Entities, Corey R. Hoze

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

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.

Owning And Dissolving Strata Property, Douglas C. Harris

All Faculty Publications

Strata or condominium property creates multiple privately owned lots or units within an association of owners. Dissolving strata property involves winding-up the association and terminating the private interests. As a result, the non-consensual dissolution of strata property involves the taking of property from those owners who oppose dissolution. The owners of individual lots become co-owners of the land formerly within the association, but the non-consenting owners have their property interests in separate lots taken from them. Beginning with the observation that non-consensual dissolution of strata property results in a taking of property, this article analyzes British Columbia’s move to facilitate …

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 …

Legislative Exactions And Progressive Property, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

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 …

An Empirical Study Of Implicit Takings., James E. Krier, Stewart E. Sterk

Articles

Takings scholarship has long focused on the niceties of Supreme Court doctrine, while ignoring the operation of takings law "on the ground" in the state and lower federal courts, which together decide the vast bulk of all takings cases. This study, based primarily on an empirical analysis of more than 2000 reported decisions ovcr the period 1979 through 2012, attempts to fill that void. This study establishes that the Supreme Court's categorical rules govern almost no state takings cases, and that takings claims based on government regulation almost invariably fail. By contrast, when takings claims arise out of government action …

The Strange Career Of Private Takings Of Private Property For Private Use, Jan G. Laitos

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Part I summarizes the two private entities thattraditionally have been conferred the power to take private property for their own private use: (1) natural resource developers and (2) common carriers involved in, andresponsible for, our country’s transportation, storage, and distribution (TS&D) system for energy infrastructure—pipelines, electrical transmission lines, and rail lines. Part II considers the traditional rationale for those private takings, which typically relies on some version ofthe notion thatthe public atlarge may, or will, eventually benefit from this private exercise of eminent domain. Part III explores the four central problems associated with these kinds of private takings: (1) the …

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.

Doing A Double Take: Rail-Trail Takings Litigation In The Post-Brandt Trust Era, Danaya C. Wright

UF Law Faculty Publications

After providing a brief explanation of railroad development, railbanking, the takings cases, and the Brandt Trust decision, this Article will explore the implications of each of these three legal issues at the heart of the takings disputes. What makes the decision in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States particularly disappointing is not that the Court came to the wrong conclusion in its interpretation of the railroad’s interest in federally granted railroad rights of way (“FGROWs”) granted pursuant to the 1875 General Railroad Right of Way Act, but that its wrong interpretation adds all of the 1875 Act FGROW …

Emergency Takings, Brian Angelo Lee

Michigan Law Review

Takings law has long contained a puzzle. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to pay “just compensation” to owners of private property that the government “takes.” In ordinary circumstances, this requirement applies equally whether the property is confiscated or destroyed, and it also applies to property confiscated in emergencies. Remarkably, however, courts have repeatedly held that if the government destroys property to address an emergency, then a “necessity exception” relieves the government of any obligation to compensate the owner of the property that was sacrificed for the public good. Although the roots of this startling principle …

When Private Property Rights Collide With Growth Management Legislation, Steve P. Calandrillo, Chryssa V. Deliganis, Andrea Woods

Articles

Over the past century, ever-expanding urban and suburban growth in the United States has offered a clear sign of America’s economic vitality, but it has not come without unique challenges of its own. Indeed, efforts to promulgate “smart growth” legislation as an antidote to suburban “sprawl” have proliferated in the past three decades, but it is time we ask ourselves whether their benefits outweigh their unintended consequences. States and local governments that once enthusiastically touted such legislation are beginning to confront unforeseen obstacles–and litigation–that raise the need for immediate reform.

This Article explores the impact of growth management acts on …

On Bargaining For Development, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

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, …

From Railroads To Sand Dunes: An Examination Of The Offsetting Doctrine In Partial Takings, Louis M. Russo

Fordham Law Review

Called “shadowy at best,” the offsetting doctrine in partial takings has confused “even trained legal minds” and generated inconsistent decision after inconsistent decision.  The offsetting doctrine allows certain benefits, termed special, to offset condemnation awards, while general benefits may not be offset.  Courts blindly adhere to the doctrine despite its underpinnings rooted in eighteenth-century public policy, which was based on concerns of overly speculative valuation and arguably erroneous fairness, as well as incorrect interpretations of Takings Clause jurisprudence.  Such adherence dramatically increases the cost of financing a takings project.

In the face of blind adherence to the doctrine, municipalities are …

Passive Takings: The State's Affirmative Duty To Protect Property, Christopher Serkin

Michigan Law Review

The purpose of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause is to protect property owners from the most significant costs of legal transitions. Paradigmatically, a regulatory taking involves a government action that interferes with expectations about the content of property rights. Legal change has therefore always been central to regulatory takings claims. This Article argues that it does not need to be and that governments can violate the Takings Clause by failing to act in the face of a changing world. This argument represents much more than a minor refinement of takings law because recognizing governmental liability for failing to act means …

Court Of Appeals Of New York, Consumers Union Of United States, Inc. V. New York, Daphne Vlcek

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justifying A Prudential Solution To The Williamson County Ripeness Puzzle, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

In the much-maligned 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, the Supreme Court articulated a rule of “ripeness” requiring most Fifth Amendment regulatory-takings claimants to seek “just compensation” in state court before attempting to litigate in federal court. Williamson County and its progeny have opened a Pandora’s box of unforeseen complications, spawning many more questions than they purported to answer. At the forefront is what kind of requirement the rule is anyway. This Article contends that reading Williamson County as grounded in the Constitution (specifically, in Article III or the Fifth Amendment) runs the …

The Price Of Protection: Compensation For Partial Takings Along The Coast, Matthew Hromadka

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Progressive Property Moving Forward, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

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, …

The Categorical Lucas Rule And The Nuisance And Background Principles Exception, Carol Necole Brown

Touro Law Review

This article examines the seminal 1992 United States Supreme Court decision, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, specifically focusing on the Lucas nuisance exception. The author surveyed approximately 1,600 reported regulatory takings cases decided since the Lucas decision involving Lucas takings challenges. The author further identified the statutory nuisance cases in which state and local governments unsuccessfully asserted the Lucas nuisance exception as a defense to the courts’ findings of a Lucas taking. This article examines the prospective potential of these cases for assisting private property owners in enhancing private property rights protections within the area of regulatory takings.

The Ripeness Game: Why Are We Still Forced To Play?, Michael M. Berger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Requiem For Regulation, Garrett Power

Faculty Scholarship

This comment reviews U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the past 100 years which have considered the constitutional limitations on governmental powers. It finds that at the three-quarter mark of the 20th century, a remarkable set of Court precedents had swollen the regulatory powers of governments while shrinking private rights to property and contract. But since the Reagan years, a more conservative Court has undertaken to curtail governmental activity in general, and to limit federal, state, and local planning in particular. A number of 5-4 decisions expanded private property rights and contracted the scope of the federal “commerce power.” The comment …