Zoom Link For Jeopardy Event

 https://unl.zoom.us/rec/play/kV6yR25t1uc_1cbQRaBu4VAdFcF88n-NFpPraryBJFPFOXiZ1VzDOpcZyQijlHslIrUeBYK9GdGAhl8d.ODlphhVtTiHxLdPt?continueMode=true&_x_zm_rtaid=Hvmz7gkKQPuEo_XWyGh6Dg.1680274853525.913523a9b9eecb4e69cf71c4e83a3d07&_x_zm_rhtaid=504

Two Things

 1. As I already told you in class, my school choice article will not be on the exam. It relates to property because of exclusionary zoning and students trapped by zip code in low-performing schools, but I will not test you on my article or on the issue.

2. I really enjoyed our in class discussion of school choice. I know many of you oppose school choice, but it is wonderful that we could have a spirited and civil discussion of the issues. Thanks to all of you who participated in our class discussion.

See you on April 10 when I get back from taking UNL Law on the road.

Apartments Used to "Buffer" Single-family Homes

Notice on p. 885 of Arlington Heights the Court talks about how one of the purposes of R-5 zoning (multiple family housing--i.e. residential apartments) is to "serve as a buffer between single family development...and commercial or manufacturing districts."

What do you think about this buffering function of apartments?

Why should lower-income families (and their children) be used as a means to an end, as the means of absorbing the traffic and congestion from commercial/industrial districts in order to buffer and protect more affluent families who live in single-family zones?

Chew on this for awhile and think deeply about it.

Assignments for March 27-29

 Tahoe-Sierra (link): Murr v. Wisconsin (Link); Preview of this Term's Takings Case: Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota (link); Takings Summary

  Exclusionary Zoning and Equal Protection

Washington v. Davis (link); Casebook p. 883-896; Con Law Video on Equal Laws vs Equal Results:
https://use.vg/CvcTZk 

 Casebook p. 897-914: My School Choice Article (PDF Provided)

The video linked above is one I recorded for my Con Law class when we were zooming law school. I recorded the entire Con Law class over the summer of 2020 (alone in Room 113 with a video recorder) so we could have something that at least resembled real law school notwithstanding  Zoom Law.

Dolan v. Tigard Plan

"In 1991, the Dolan family asked the city of Tigard, Oregon, for a permit in order to double the size of A-Boy West, the family's electrical and plumbing supply store. In return, the Dolans were asked to dedicate part of their adjacent land to the city--some of it within the Fanno Creek floodplain and some of it for a bike path. The Dolans sued the city, claiming their land was being taken without just compensation--and they won in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994. Drawing by Dennis McClendon; source, city of Tigard." Source American Planning Association

"Money Finally Returned to Charlotte Trucking Company Owner After 2020 Seizure at Phoenix Airport"

 Civil Forfeiture Case

 

Nice win for IJ!

Assignments for Week 7 (March 20-22)

Finish our discussion : Regulatory Takings: Penn Central (casebook p. 820-836); Keystone, 480 US 470 (1987) (read it on Hein or WestLaw)

Euclid (casebook p.753-763); First English (casebook p. 816-820)

Lucas (casebook p. 836-849)

Nollan and Dolan (casebook p. 849-868)

 For Wednesday:

 Palazzolo (casebook p. 868-879); Tahoe-Sierra (link): Murr v. Wisconsin (Link);

Greetings From Spring Training

                  

Remember, work hard but leave time to relax. Life is good. Take time to enjoy it.

And here is my scorecard (I always try to score games I attend):

       

Pursuit of Happyness: A Great "Property" Movie To Watch During Spring Break

If you want to relax without feeling guilty over the break, here is a "property" movie you may wish to rent for fun.

This movie is about poverty and wealth, hard work and achievement, giving a helping hand up to those who need help, and asking how to succeed rather than railing in envy against those who have succeeded.
My whole family really enjoyed this movie. Just remembering this movie has made me want to watch it again. I think I still have it recorded on my dvr.

And, of course, there is always Sense and Sensibility if something about the Fee Tail is more your preference!

Pennsylvania Coal: One Final Question

 The Court held that the statute went too far and thus was a taking under the Fifth Amendment. Does this mean that the state of Pennsylvania may not protect homes, other buildings, and even public streets from subsidence damage?

What may the government do?

Some History of Grand Central Development

Link

Secret to Reading SCOTUS Decisions

 Be skeptical and open-minded. Do not be deferential to the Court's reasoning. Demand that the opinion persuade you of its correctness. Ask hard questions. Be a lawyer, not an obedient subject of the judiciary.

Assignments for Week 6 (March 6-8)

 Read Prof. Linder's Introduction to Takings Clause (link);Casebook p. 791-807 (Public Use Requirement) 

U.S. v. Causby (casebook p. 730-738); Casebook p. 807-810 (Physical Takings and Loretto);Cedar Point decision

Regulatory Takings: Mahon (casebook p. 811-816); Penn Central (casebook p. 820-836)

 

If time permits: Euclid (casebook p.753-763); First English (casebook p. 816-820); Keystone, 480 US 470 (1987) (read it on Hein or WestLaw)

Preview of Coming Attractions

                                  

                                                       Geraldine Tyler

 

SCOTUS just granted cert review in an important property rights case-- TYLER, GERALDINE V. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN, ET AL.. Here is a summary of the case from Prof. Somin:

On Friday, the Supreme Court decided to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of a Minnesota state law empowering local governments to seize the entire value of a property in order to pay off a much smaller delinquent property tax debt. The property owner in the case—93-year-old widow Geraldine Tyler—argues that this kind of uncompensated seizure of home equity violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires government to pay "just compensation" anytime it takes private property, and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.

The case has important implications beyond Minnesota. Ten other states have laws that allow similar "home equity theft."

See link here

 

We will preview this case at the end of this unit on Takings. Oral arguments are set for April 26 2023.

Richard Epstein's Book "Takings" is "Dangerous"

                             BEWARE--DANGEROUS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AHEAD


Then Senator Joe Biden calls one of my all-time favorite books, Richard Epstein's Takings, the most dangerous book ever written  during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Justice Clarence Thomas.

If you want to live life in the fast lane, read it sometime on your own. YOLO

Poletown Overruled

The Michigan Supreme Court explicitly overruled the Poletown decision in County of Wayne v. Hathcock, 684 N.W. 2d 765 (Mich. 2004).

As Prof. Dukeminier et al. describe the holding in Hathcock, the Michigan Supreme Court relied heavily on the Poletown dissent and "held that transfer of condemned land to private parties is appropriate as a public use [under the Michigan state constitution] only where 'public necessity of the extreme sort' requires eminent domain to assemble land on behalf of enterprises generating public benefits (for example, rights of way, railroads, and highways...); or where the condemned property 'remains subject to public oversight after transfer' (for example, the property is transferred to a regulated public utility...); or where the property is taken not in the interests of private parties to whom it is transferred, but rather because of 'facts of independent public significance' (for example, to clear blighted land)."

It is important to recognize that the U.S. Constitution establishes only the floor of protection against non-public use takings (as well as other property rights). State constitutions also contain provisions protecting property owners against takings and these may provide more protection than does the U.S. constitution. There has also been a great deal of post-Kelo legislation enacted by state legislatures providing at least some additional protection.

For an article on the "backlash" against Kelo, see Ilya Somin, The Limits of Backlash: Assessing the Political Response to Kelo (link) I am not assigning this article, merely mentioning it for those who wish to dig deeper.

Takings Litigation and Social Justice

 Imagine litigation in which the government's lawyers are arguing that an endangered species is not a taking that requires compensation, and the property owner's lawyers arguing that the law has deprived the landowner of most of the value of his property and therefore is a taking that requires just compensation.

Which of these lawyers is seeking justice by representing their clients in this case?