Takings

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.

As challenges to land use and environmental controls by landowners and the property-rights movement have become more frequent, the concept of "takings" -- government action that excessively limits a property-owner's use of private land -- has become both increasingly familiar to the public, and increasingly problematic for planners, local officials, and anyone involved with making day-to-day decisions about land use. A vast and diverse body of case law has come into existence over the past several decades, and the controversy generated by recent legal decisions has resulted in a significant level of ideological bias in much of what has been written on the topic.This volume is an objective and authoritative examination that considers all aspects of the takings issue. It is a much-needed guide and overview that introduces and explains issues surrounding regulatory takings on the local, state, and federal level for anyone involved with private land and government limitation of its permissible use. The authors describe where the law is now, predict where it might go in the future, and review conflict-reducing solutions to a variety of situations. They condense an immense amount of information into a clear and accesible format, making the book equally valuable for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.The Takings Issue addresses procedural hurdles involved in getting a takings issue heard by a court, examines what does and does not constitute a taking, and considers the remedies available to landowners involved in takings actions. It treats concerns such as zoning, dedications and exactions, subdivision platting, and other local issues in some detail, and also considers state and federal issues involving industrial site approval, endangered species and wetlands protection, restrictions on access to resources on federal lands, and other topics.The book is an essential reference for planners, land use lawyers, developers, and students of planning and law, as well as for policymakers and citizens involved with takings issues.

This book is the first large-scale effort devoted to this controversial issue, providing a vast platform of comparative knowledge on direct, indirect, categorical, and partial takings. Written for legal professionals, academics, urban and regional planners, real estate developers, and civil-society groups, the book analyzes thirteen advanced economy countries representing a variety of legal regimes, institutional structures, cultures, geographic sizes, and population densities.

Proposition 13 reduced the ability of local gov't's. to finance public goods and infrastructure through local taxes. Local gov't's. responded by increasing their reliance on fees and exactions. The constitutional takings clause may represent yet another limitation on the ability of local gov't's. to finance public improvements. In addition, CA's burgeoning population and scenic and natural resources make it fertile ground for the conflicts associated with growth: how should transportation infrastructure and other public services be financed as communities spread outward? How should open space, habitat, and access to recreational resources be preserved and paid for? Tables.

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.

State and federal government regulations are disciplined by property-owner coalitions whose "voice" is clearly audible in the statehouses and in Congress.