Property Rights And Eminent Domain

In a country built on the institution of private property, property-owner rights have been under attack. By arguing that private property is a fundamental liberty whose protection deserves the highest priority, Ellen Frankel Paul challenges one of the dominant trends of the past half century: the erosion of property rights via zoning and land use restrictions, carried on by government exercising its "police power" or promoting "the public interest." Paul begins by examining the arguments of environmentalists in support of land-use legislation, and explores a few particularly troubling examples of the exercise of eminent domain and police powers. She traces the philosophical arguments for the two powers as well as their tortuous judicial history, the meaning of property rights and investigates how previous thinkers have defended these rights is detailed, and Paul suggests a more adequate defense for them. In the concluding portion of the book, the very legitimacy of eminent domain is questioned and the author offers recommendations for its reform. This analysis is wide in scope and makes creative use of historical, legal, economic, and philosophic methodologies. It not only gives an account of the present power regulations on land, but also provides an exhaustive history of the development of the law in these two areas and of the philosophical ideas of the thinkers who helped shape this process. This book is distinctive because it places a theory of the just acquisition of property at the heart of the answer to the question of the extent to which governments can rightfully exercise the powers of eminent domain and police. "Amazingly, in a country built on the institution of private property, the right to property in land has been under increasing assault, and has seldom been defended. Paul's book--by arguing that private property is a fundamental liberty whose protection deserves the highest priority--is a major step toward filling the void."--Robert Hessen, Stanford University

In an effort to understand the reasons for and consequences of the political backlash to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. New London, this book brings together a diverse group of scholars and practitioners who explore the uses and abuses of eminent domain and regulatory takings.

In a country built on the institution of private property, property-owner rights have been under attack. By arguing that private property is a fundamental liberty whose protection deserves the highest priority, Ellen Frankel Paul challenges one of the dominant trends of the past half century: the erosion of property rights via zoning and land use restrictions, carried on by government exercising its "police power" or promoting "the public interest." Paul begins by examining the arguments of environmentalists in support of land-use legislation, and explores a few particularly troubling examples of the exercise of eminent domain and police powers. She traces the philosophical arguments for the two powers as well as their tortuous judicial history, the meaning of property rights and investigates how previous thinkers have defended these rights is detailed, and Paul suggests a more adequate defense for them. In the concluding portion of the book, the very legitimacy of eminent domain is questioned and the author offers recommendations for its reform. This analysis is wide in scope and makes creative use of historical, legal, economic, and philosophic methodologies. It not only gives an account of the present power regulations on land, but also provides an exhaustive history of the development of the law in these two areas and of the philosophical ideas of the thinkers who helped shape this process. This book is distinctive because it places a theory of the just acquisition of property at the heart of the answer to the question of the extent to which governments can rightfully exercise the powers of eminent domain and police. "Amazingly, in a country built on the institution of private property, the right to property in land has been under increasing assault, and has seldom been defended. Paul's book--by arguing that private property is a fundamental liberty whose protection deserves the highest priority--is a major step toward filling the void."--Robert Hessen, Stanford University

In this concise history of expropriation of land for the common good in Europe and North America from medieval times to 1800, Susan Reynolds contextualizes the history of an important legal doctrine regarding the relationship between government and the in

Law of Property Rights Protection: Limitations on Governmental Powers, Third Edition is a comprehensive, up-to-date review of the on-going battle between government's desire to regulate and limit private property use, and property owners' equally powerful desire to avoid economically damaging or unreasonable or unconstitutional limitations. Federal, state, and local governments often wish to restrict or condition uses of private property, while private property owners wish to avoid or seek compensation for such regulatory controls. This battle between property and regulation is one of the most emotionally charged and fiercely contested issues in contemporary law. An enormous amount of litigation, at both the federal and state level, has stemmed from questions surrounding the extent to which government may restrict or even prevent certain private property uses. The relevant law is constantly changing and evolving, so count on the Law of Property Right Protection to bring you completely up to date. The book is organized according to the many ways that government powers over private property are limited, by the federal and state constitutions, the common law, and equitable principles and has been cited by the United States Supreme Court, federal courts, and state appellate courts. Law of Property Rights Protection: Limitations on Governmental Powers, Third Edition: Analyzes relevant and current case law, and identifies (1) which challenges by private property owners were successful, (2) what facts seemed compelling to reviewing courts considering property-restrictive regulations, and (3) what arguments by property owners tend to fail in the eyes of reviewing courts. Offers advice on which property-protective provisions in constitutional law maximize the likelihood of a successful challenge to restrictive regulations, as well as advice on how to mount a legal challenge which will not be dismissed on jurisdictional or procedural grounds. Considers all of the primary limitations on government regulations of property - Takings; Due Process; Contracts Clause; Equal Protection; the Vested Rights Doctrine; Anti-Retroactivity Presumptions; Internal Limits on the Police Power Includes the full range of property interests - such as real property; contract rights; leasehold rights; unpatented mining claims; water rights; intellectual property; rights of access and entry; royalty rights; all forms of intangible property interests Using Laitos' strategic approach, and easy-to-follow organization, this book will help you formulate arguments and challenges which may overcome or invalidate onerous regulations on the use and enjoyment of private property. Note: Online subscriptions are for three-month periods. Previous Edition Law of Property Rights Protection: Limitations on Governmental Powers, Second Edition, ISBN 9781543802368

If legal scholar Richard Epstein is right, then the New Deal is wrong, if not unconstitutional. Epstein reaches this sweeping conclusion after making a detailed analysis of the eminent domain, or takings, clause of the Constitution, which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. In contrast to the other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the eminent domain clause has been interpreted narrowly. It has been invoked to force the government to compensate a citizen when his land is taken to build a post office, but not when its value is diminished by a comprehensive zoning ordinance. Epstein argues that this narrow interpretation is inconsistent with the language of the takings clause and the political theory that animates it. He develops a coherent normative theory that permits us to distinguish between permissible takings for public use and impermissible ones. He then examines a wide range of government regulations and taxes under a single comprehensive theory. He asks four questions: What constitutes a taking of private property? When is that taking justified without compensation under the police power? When is a taking for public use? And when is a taking compensated, in cash or in kind? Zoning, rent control, progressive and special taxes, workers’ compensation, and bankruptcy are only a few of the programs analyzed within this framework. Epstein’s theory casts doubt upon the established view today that the redistribution of wealth is a proper function of government. Throughout the book he uses recent developments in law and economics and the theory of collective choice to find in the eminent domain clause a theory of political obligation that he claims is superior to any of its modern rivals.