449 notes - The US Consitution and the 20th century legal...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
607/18/2007 The US Consitution and the… 20 th century legal evolution -some key cases -from the perspective of the US supreme court (Jerold Kayden in Jacobs) -last 12 worlds of the 5 th amendment Nor shall privete property be taken for public use without just compensation Four key periods Fundamentals period 1900-1928 1915-gov reg is never a prob-no limits 1922-gov reg can go too far, in theory-in practice it is not clear how much these limits really callenge the way gov manages of private property 1926-zoning is acceptable, doesn’t go to far Quiescent Period 1929-1977 1954-re-development is leg pub use, gov can take land from one prvt owner and sell to another Boundary setting period 1978-2000 78-92-limits to overzealous gov Twenty-first century 2001-? Strongly favors government Gov can take land from one private owner and transfer to another…swept aside necessity of “blight” Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915) There are no limits to gov regulation Regulation can ban specific activities Penn Coal v. Mahon (1922) Regulation can be the equivalent of a physical taking Introduces legal administrative concept of “regulatory takings” “the general rule…is, that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes to far it will be recognized as a taking” What is too far, when does it occur? Because when it does occur, then regulation is the equivalent of a physical takings (expropriation) In which case it requires compensation Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Zoning (land use regulation) is constitutional Gov can: divide land into districts Specify acceptable uses for land Treat landowners diff with regard to acc land use activity Zoning is not and instance of gov going to far Berman v. Parker (1954)(dept store in DC that earned money but govt labled as blight) What is public use? Traditional-road, school, hospital Modern-spatial transformation Re-development of downtown areas that are deteriorating is a legitimate idea of the public interest And in pursuing this, The public can be physically take land from one private party and transfer it to another *conditioned on circumstances
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
The land is “sick” (blight), want to make it better Land will be more healthy because of this Penn Central v. New York City (1978) (penn wanted to build skyscraper on grand central station) Land use decisions should be fact based, and takings analyses and decisions should be on the whole parcel owned New York city passed law that restricted use of airspace above grand central station Penn saw that property was taken-NYC had gone to far Nollan v. CA coastal Commission (1987) Regulation must advance a legitimate state interest Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR (1994) Must be a nexus (reasonable relationship of what land owner wants and of what state does) of state action and what is required of a landowner Court beginning to “clip wings” of gov First English v. County of Los Angeles (1987) Temporary takings can occure Lucas v. SC coastal council
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/27/2008 for the course POLI SCI 449 taught by Professor Jacobs during the Spring '07 term at University of Wisconsin.

Page1 / 8

449 notes - The US Consitution and the 20th century legal...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online