SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS PHYSICAL TAKINGS: LORETTO MODERN TAKINGS: PENN CENTRAL AD HOC APPROACH THE SPECTRE OF EUCLID INVESTMENT-BACKED EXPECTATIONS LUCAS:

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Regulatory Takings Workshop Saratoga, New York August 17, 2001 Timothy J. Dowling Chief Counsel Community Rights Counsel.

Advertisements

The Role of Custom Thornton v. Hay, 462 P.2d 671 (Or. 1969).  Appeal from decree enjoining building of fences.  Court rejected prescription because it.

Case Study Case Study The Waters Montgomery, AL. Project Summary Location – Montgomery, AL Acreage – 1,250 acres Units – 2,500 residential units Product.

THE THREEPENNY OPERA (1928) 1954 Broadway Cast Album THE THREEPENNY OPERA (1928) Book & Lyrics by Bertholdt Brecht Music by Kurt Weill (1928) English Translation.

1 The trouble with land is that they're not making it anymore. March 26, 2010 Mark Bentley, Esq., AICP.

THE LEGAL BASES OF PLANNING. TOPICS KEY QUESTIONS POLICE POWER & PLANNING EMINENT DOMAIN AND PLANNING TAKINGS & PLANNING HOW IS THE “PUBLIC INTEREST”

The Land Use Planning Process Demystified Jesse J. Richardson, Jr. Associate Professor Urban Affairs and Planning Virginia Tech

Deborah M. Smith United States Magistrate Judge District of Alaska LAWS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT RELATED TO FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS Second Asian Judges Symposium.

THE “ABCs” OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND INVERSE CONDEMNATION Sima R. Salek, Esq. Jeffrey F. Kagan, Esq. Orbach, Huff & Suarez LLP.

ALI-ABA Annual Land Use Institute Defensible Moratoria Dwight H. Merriam, FAICP,CRE.

CWAG 2010 WATER LAW CONFERENCE The Broadmoor Colorado Springs, Colorado April 29 – 30, 2010.

1 Eminent Domain in United States Constitutional Law Investment Treaty Forum Conference British Institute of International and Comparative Law 5 May 2006.

Foster Associates, Inc. Inverse Condemnation and Related Government Liability Penn Central’s Economic Failings Confounded Takings Jurisprudence William.

Capitalism vs. Communism

Copyright and P2P Edward W. Felten Dept. of Computer Science Princeton University.

Constitutional Law II: First Review Prof. Morrison Feb. 15, 2006.

1 Law is a system of known rules applied by a judge is a pretence long under attack. In an important sense legal rules are never clear, if it had to be.

Q UINCY COLLEGE Paralegal Studies Program Paralegal Studies Program American Constitutional Law LAW-210 Economic Due Process.

Technion - Haifa Institute of Technology February 12-14, 2014 Dwight Merriam, FAICP Robinson & Cole LLP Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District.

Property II Professor Donald J. Kochan Spring 2009 Class March 2009.

APA Minnesota State Planning Conference St. Cloud, Minnesota September 30, 2011 Jean Coleman, Attorney/Planner CR Planning, Inc.

Finding Historic Preservation in the Constitution Judicial Impact on Preservation.

IOLTA: mathemagic and alchemy Lucas Figiel. “Positive Net Return” interest paid on the account less –maintenance costs –the costs of accounting for the.

The Courts and the Takings Clause Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). TM.

17.32 Environmental Politics 1 Property Rights & Environmental Policy.

Access to Justice and Technology Ronald W. Staudt Class 8: Alternatives to Current Justice Processes March 26, 2003.

URBDP 598A: Land Use Planning I, Winter AY Notable Case Law (cont.) and Zoning Basics Announcements and news –Policy memos, SoCRs, Jan (Coase)

REGULATORY TAKINGS: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE Timothy J. Dowling Chief Counsel Community Rights Counsel 2002 Minnesota Association of City Attorneys Educational.

IOLTA and the Washington Legal Foundation Case Lucas Figiel Adapted by RWS.

Regulatory Takings Update: Amelia Island, Florida August 23, 2001 Timothy J. Dowling Chief Counsel Community Rights Counsel.

B r a z o s R i v e r A u t h o r i t y FERC Encroachments.

Balancing Private Property Rights and the Public Interest Rebecca Roberts.

Regulatory Takings and Smart Growth Douglas T. Kendall Timothy J. Dowling Community Rights Counsel May 10, 2001 Cobb County, Georgia.

AAEC Property Appraisal AAEC 4303 PROPERTY APPRAISAL.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

ARE 309Ted Feitshans05-1 Unit 5 Common Law Solutions to Environmental Problems Lateral & subjacent support –Strict liability - unimproved –Negligence -

Foster Associates, Inc. Endangered Species Act Conference Bennett & “Undue Economic Hardship”: Florida Rock V’s “Stable Framework” to Analyze Penn Central’s.

Balancing Private Property Rights and the Public Interest Rebecca Roberts.

The Middle Ages. 1. Write your thoughts in the margin 2. Share your thoughts with an elbow partner nearby 3. Be prepared to share to whole group If our.

Single Economic Parcel Theory Workshop Stanley W. Lamport Cox Castle & Nicholson, LLP California Coastal Commission May 11, 2010 Agenda Item 20.

ARE 309Ted Feitshans07-1 Unit 7 Constitutional Limitations Regulatory Takings: Condemnation, Regulation and Impermissible Takings of Private Property.

Responding to Climate Change: Is the Takings Clause an Obstacle? Alan Weinstein Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban.

TITLE PAGE Vision TITLE Include your names INTRODUCTION This is where you will write your introduction. Remember to include a catchy first statement.

Regulation of Geothermal Resources in Colorado

David H. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council U.S. Supreme Court 505 U.S June 29, 1992.

David H. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council U.S. Supreme Court 505 U.S June 29, 1992.

1 Common Law –Review –Exercise 3. Jones v Union Pacific Introduction to Theories of Adjudication Next class –100, 102, 104. Dworkin & Scalia –Exercise.

Technology and Brand Law Implementing The New EU Data Protection Regulations.

SECOND SET OF LAND USE ASSIGNMENTS 391 (STARTING WITH CAMPSEN)—465 (UP TO FLORIDA LAND USE AND ENVTL. DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT) (UP TO SECTION “E”)

Three Types of Taking 1. Seizure (Eminent Domain) Kelo v. New London 2. Nuisance Barron v. Baltimore, U.S. v. Causby 3. Regulatory Lucas v. So. Carolina.

SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS COVENENTS (TURUDIC) COURT’S APPROACH TO CONSTRUING COVENANTS PROS AND CONS OF GATED COMMUNITIES BARGAINING: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.

SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS THE LUCAS “PER SE” RULES 1. PHYSICAL INVASION 2. DENIAL OF ALL ECONOMICALLY BENEFICIAL OR PRODUCTIVE USE EXCEPTION: BACKGROUND PRINCIPLES.

Environmental Justice – Who pays for Environmental Protection?

INVERSE CONDEMNATION S. Steven Vitale, MAI valbridge.com.

Environmental Regulation Prof. David Glazier April 12, 2007 PropertyProperty.

Damien M. Schiff Pacific Legal Foundation. Takings Tests Physical taking (categorical) Third-party physical taking (categorical) Deprivation of all economically.

SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS FLOATING ZONES AS A PATH TO THE FUTURE BARGAINING/ MIXED ZONES PUDs PURPOSES THE DENSITY ISSUE IN PETERS.

Stealing Your Property or Paying You for Obeying the Law

Outcome: Causes/Effects of the Middle Ages

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON REGULATION

Trails Carolina

Therapy Programs Provider: Trails Carolina

Trails Carolina: Social Media Profiles

Economics Defined The social science concerned with the efficient use of limited or scarce resources to achieve maximum satisfaction of human wants.

Outcome: Causes/Effects of the Middle Ages

Land Use Exactions, Takings and Impact Fees

Outcome: Causes/Effects of the Middle Ages

Slide Set Twenty-Three: Modern Challenges in Property Law – Land Use 3

Functions and Relations

Presentation Outline Workshop Overview/Background

Presentation transcript:

SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS PHYSICAL TAKINGS: LORETTO MODERN TAKINGS: PENN CENTRAL AD HOC APPROACH THE SPECTRE OF EUCLID INVESTMENT-BACKED EXPECTATIONS LUCAS: THE NEW PER SE RULE RATIONALEEXCEPTIONS

STRUCTURE OF LUCAS EMPHASIS ON PER SE RULES (DISTINGUISH PENN CENTRAL) 2 DISCRETE AREAS OF PER SE TAKINGS: 1. PHYSICAL INVASION 2. DENIAL OF ALL ECONOMICALLY BENEFICIAL OR PRODUCTIVE USE DERIVATION: AGINS (LATER MODIFIED) WHAT IS TOTAL DEPRIVATION? FN. 7

JUSTIFICATIONS AND RESPONSES S.C. JUSTIFICATION FOR ALL ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE TAKEN:NOXIOUS USE CASES SCALIA RESPONSE: 1. PENN CENTRAL—THIS WAS EARLY ATTEMPT TO DESCRIBE THEORY OF POLICE POWER 2. NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN BENEFIT- CONFERRING AND HARM-PREVENTING

EXCEPTIONS TO CATEGORICAL TAKINGS RULE EXCEPTION: PROSCRIBED USES (BY REGULATION) WERE NOT PART OF TITLE TO BEGIN WITH EXAMPLE: NUISANCE FACTORS WILL S. CAROLINA REGULATION FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY?

EXTENDING LUCAS? TAHOE- SIERRA THE MORATORIA IN QUESTION PURPOSELENGTH PURPOSE OF BI-STATE COMPACT DANGER TO LAKE TAHOE

TAHOE-SIERRA: THE PS ARGUMENT THE PER SE TAKING ARGUMENT --FACIAL ATTACK --TEMPORAL SEGMENTATION --RELATION TO PREVIOUS CASES: 1. PENN CENTRAL 2. LEASEHOLD CASES 3. PHYSICAL TAKINGS: LORETTO 4. LUCAS

THE HOLDING IN TAHOE-SIERRA REFUSAL TO APPLY PER SE RULE 1. PHYSICAL v. REGULATORY TAKINGS 2. LOOK AT “PARCEL AS A WHOLE” 3. DISTINGUISH LUCAS: FEE SIMPLE 4. EFFECT ON PLANNING PROCESS 5. CAN’T DISTINGUISH PERMIT DELAY APPLYING PENN CENTRAL MORE THAN ONE YEAR DOUBTFUL?