Comments on: Takings

By: Jim Lippard

Jim Lippard — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:52:00 +0000

BTW, where I said “an argument for Measure A” I should have said “an argument against Measure A.”

I’m in favor of a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions, though the Europeans have so far shown how *not* to do it (in part because the EU Emissions Trading Scheme gives out too many allowances to polluters, and the fact that they are giving away any allowances for free at all, rather than requiring them to be purchased). The U.S. has only engaged in purely voluntary cap-and-trade (e.g., the Chicago Climate Exchange)–though there are some pretty big companies participating.

By: Donna

Donna — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:02:34 +0000

The problem is there is NO cost to developers for their takings in developing land. We are in a world of hurt right now as far as our environment is concerned, and these not just local but GLOBAL considerations are being considered by nobody in this country. Those cities and areas that are recogniizing the problem and starting to do something about it will be penalized by those actions like Prop 90 that seekt o compensate developers over the common good. It is the tragedy of the commons playing out on a global scale.

Humans have always damaged land in developing it, but before, it was a regional problem. Now it’s global, and yet, this country refuses to recognize it. And since we have no national plan to limit the damage and preserve open space, watershed areas, critical habitats, limit CO2 in the atmosphere, and on and on, local governments must act. And yet, when they do, the developers want to be compensated for not being allowed to develop.

Agreed, if you own property and can’t develop it just as you please, there should be some compensation. But, to say that you have no responsibility to the surrounding community when you DO develop is just as wrong.

These things need to be decided on a community basis, since our state and federal government refuse to deal with the problem. There are already means to do so. And there is no reason to support land grabs and yet more money going to the rich for adding to problems they are already responsible for creating, and have not bothered to pay for.

By: Jim Lippard

Jim Lippard — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 21:07:48 +0000

David Friedman has a post about California’s Prop 90 and how an argument for Santa Clara’s Measure A is really an argument for Prop 90.

By: Casey Kochmer

Casey Kochmer — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:43:36 +0000

Yupper we are fighting In Washington against Initiative 933, Its terrible. Its a rape the land for the rich law…

gads

By: gerry rosser

gerry rosser — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:22:54 +0000

Here in Florida there’s a proposition to raise the percentage of voters needed to amend the state constitution. Apparently politicians fear nothing so much as direct democracy. The Forida Bar endorses this proposition, not surprisingly. Not exactly on point to the property rights thing, but thought it might be interesting to you.

By: Jim Lippard

Jim Lippard — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:40:04 +0000

Prop. 207 in Arizona (and perhaps the other examples as well) contains an exemption for all existing land-use regulations. Those who maintain that it wipes out existing environmental regulations or zoning laws are misrepresenting the content and effect of this proposition.

The law mandates that if new regulations are created which restrict the use of property in a way that reduces its value, then the government must compensate the owner for the “taking”–the same basic principle is in the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which says “Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.”