Two RLUIPA Hypos

 

 

1. Suppose there is an old Spanish Mission church, Our Lady of Guadalupe, located near San Antonio Texas. And suppose the local landmarks committee decides to declare the church a public landmark. This designation requires the church to get permission from the landmarks committee before altering the external features of the building. 

So, the church’s membership has grown tremendously, and the sanctuary is too small for its present needs. The church has asked the landmarks committee for permission to add an addition to expand the size of its sanctuary. The committee rejected the request, because it would alter the external appearance of the church. The church will not be able to serve its entire congregation if it is not allowed to add the addition to its sanctuary.

Apply RLUIPA

2. Suppose, in Los Angeles, the Salvation Army purchases a building in a commercial area right next door to the Ritz Carlton and the W by Marriott. The Army wishes to convert the building into a homeless shelter to house and feed the less fortunate of the City of Angels. Although hotels, restaurants, commercial businesses, and even strip clubs are allowed to locate in a Commercial Zoning District, religious ministries are permitted only if they receive a special use permit. The Army applies to zoning officials for a special use permit and the application is denied.

Apply RLUIPA.

President Obama's Justice Department Report on RLUIPA

From:  Report on the Tenth Anniversary of the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act
United States Department of Justice
September 22, 2010

"And, as with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, these protections continue to be critical tools in
the federal government’s arsenal to combat religious animosity. The Justice Department
used these tools to prosecute several men who, in 2008, vandalized and burned down the
Islamic Center of Columbia, Tennessee. And in 2010, an individual pled guilty to
vandalizing a synagogue in Mobile, Alabama, by spray-painting neo-Nazi markings on the
building.
These crimes remind us that bigotry and hatred still exist in too many communities in our
nation, and that we must continue to use the laws of the land to combat acts of
discrimination and hate.
But overt discrimination and violence are not the only threats to religious liberty.
Recognizing this, 10 years ago lawmakers once again came together to protect religious
liberty by passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA),
which was signed into law on September 22, 2000.1 The law, which passed both houses of
Congress unanimously and was supported by a broad coalition of religiously and
ideologically diverse groups, addresses religious discrimination and government
infringement of religious liberty in two areas: local land-use laws, such as zoning and
landmarking ordinances, and the religious exercise of persons confined to institutions.
Upon signing the Act, President Clinton said, “Religious liberty is a constitutional value of
the highest order, and the Framers of the Constitution included protection for the free
exercise of religion in the very first Amendment. This Act recognizes the importance the
free exercise of religion plays in our democratic society.”2
In the ten years since its passage, RLUIPA has helped secure the ability of thousands of
individuals and institutions to practice their faiths freely and without discrimination. This
has come both through victories in courts as well as through government officials
voluntarily modifying their behavior to comply with the law."

Here is a cite with the full text of RLUIPA.

Ground Zero Mosque

Suppose NYC refused to allow a Mosque to locate on property it owns near ground zero in lower Manhattan, even though many other churches, synagogues,  and other places of worship have been granted zoning waivers and allowed to locate in the area.

Which sections of RLUIPA might apply?

Green Monster Air Space

 

So, I was up on the Green Monster at Fenway Park last night, and a Red Sox official I met told me a story that is about property rights. When the Red Sox added seats up on the Green Monster (the best seats in MLB), the seats extended over Lansdowne Street. The City of Boston allowed the Red Sox to build over the City's air rights, but Boston charges the Red Sox a rental fee to reimburse the City for its air space. 

Always working hard to learn more about property law.

On the Road Again--Pics of My Gig in Boston

                                   Is this me? Or my Secret Identity, Bobby Seger?

Like a rock. I don't need no spotter!

Be back soon. Speaking at B.C. Law on Tuesday and Suffolk Law on Wednesday. But I can't wait to get back to Property. Remember, don't fight the language that creates various estates, future interests, or the text of statutes and the Constitution. Just because I am older now and still running against the wind doesn't mean that y'all shouldn't run with the wind at your backs.

Signing off from Katmandu. Enjoy this break from Property and relax a little. Balance is the key

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?

Assignments for Week Six (Feb. 27-Mar 1)

 Finish Our Coverage of RAP

  Concurrent Ownership

Casebook p. 371-379; 385-405

Casebook P. 412-420

 

 Maybe we will start our discussion of the Takings Clause of the US Constitution:

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

"Who Says You Can't Physically Partition a Single Family House?"

Here is an interesting post from the PropertyProf blog (link):

CNN has a fascinating story about a Cambodian couple who cut their house in two when they divorced. (More accurately, the husband cut the house in half and moved his part to land owned by his parents). You MUST click through to see the picture.

Capitol Savings & Loan Case (p. 350)

Suppose Grutz conveys:

to A and his heirs, but if the property is ever owned or occupied by any "colored person or persons," then to B and his heirs

Assume that the property is sold to an African-American family and B files a lawsuit asking the court to enforce the forfeiture and quiet B's title in fee simple.

Are racist conditions or restrictions consistent with public policy?

Do such restrictions violate federal, state and local fair housing laws and similar anti-discrimination laws?

Would judicial enforcement violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution?

What about a covenant in a modern "exclusive development" that restricts use of the land to single family residential use only and requires single family houses to "be no less than 3500 square feet of finished living area, and to be constructed with brick exterior walls and cedar shake shingle roofs?"

Is this consistent with modern public policy and fair housing laws? Why or why not?

What about a covenant that required owners of property in the development to have annual incomes of $250,000 or more?

Contrary to public policy? Why or why not?

Assignments for Week Five (Feb. 20-22)

 Casebook p. 323 -328; Blog Post (formerly Handout 5)

 Casebook p. 334-355

Maybe we will get to this one:

 Casebook p. 355-361; 366-370; Blog Post (formerly Handout 6)

If You Are Struggling With Estates and Future Interests

 My instincts inform me that many of you are getting this material, but some of you are struggling. 

If you are getting it, good work! Keep it up!

If you are struggling, you need to try to master the material before you come to class. Read the casebook pages as many times as it takes for you to have a basic understanding of what they are saying. Read and re-read the blog posts until you understand what I am teaching there. When we discuss these materials in class, 70% or 80% of what we discuss should be confirming (and embedding in your memory) what you already know. If this is not the case for you, you need to work harder before you come to class. 

You either know this material or you don't. Like in language vocabulary, there is a right answer and many wrong answers. You need to master the materials so you can identify the correct answer.

But again, many of you are getting this. Bravo!

 If you are not, then more work is the only cure that may help.

Let's Re-write Ben Potter's Will in Caccamo case

Ben Potter’s will devised Blackacre to his granddaughter, “Anna Naomi Coverdale, in fee simple and absolutely forever; but in case the said Anna Naomi Coverdale should die without leaving lawful issue of her body begotten then and in that case I give, devise and bequeath all the same over unto” the children of William B. Potter in fee simple.

If we were counseling Ben Potter in preparation for drafting his will, what should we have asked him about his intentions concerning his granddaughter, Anna?

Did he want her to have a Fee Simple Absolute, an estate she could sell and liquidate into cash?

Did he want her to have a Fee Tail, an estate that could be converted into a Fee Simple Absolute?

Or did he want her to enjoy the property during her lifetime and at her death pass it on to her children if she had any, or else to the children of William Potter?

 Let's try to draft this provision in Ben Potter's will to better accomplish his purposes and to do so without resorting to an unusual defeasible fee. 

How about this: "to Anna for her life, and at her death to her then living children, but if no children of Anna survive her, then to the then living children of Ben Potter and their heirs."

Caccamo case (p. 302)

The Late, Great Quincy-the-Wonder-Dog's 2009 Halloween Costume (Photo by Kat Duncan)

Ben Potter’s will devised Blackacre to his granddaughter, “Anna Naomi Coverdale, in fee simple and absolutely forever; but in case the said Anna Naomi Coverdale should die without leaving lawful issue of her body begotten then and in that case I give, devise and bequeath all the same over unto” the children of William B. Potter in fee simple.

So what do you think Ben Potter was trying to convey to Anna?

 

Fee Simple Absolute: “to Anna and her heirs in fee simple absolute”

 

Fee Simple Defeasible: “to Anna and her heirs in fee simple absolute, but if at the time of her death she is not survived by a lineal descendant, then to the children of William Potter in fee simple absolute.” [Definite Failure of Issue] 

 

Fee Tail: “to Anna and her heirs in fee simple absolute, but if her line of descendants should ever fail, then to the children of William Potter in fee simple absolute.” [Indefinite Failure of Issue]

Take a look at the Nebraska statute on this issue:

76-111. Definite failure of issue, defined.

Whenever property is limited upon the death of any person without heirs or heirs of the body or issue general or special, or descendants or offspring or children or any such relative described by other terms, such limitation, unless a different intent is effectively manifested, is a limitation to take effect only when such person dies not having such relative living at the time of his death or in gestation and born alive thereafter, and is not a limitation to take effect upon the indefinite failure of such relatives; nor, unless a different intent is effectively manifested, does it mean that death without such relative, in order to be material, must occur in the lifetime of the creator of the interest.

Source:

Laws 1941, c. 153, § 11, p. 596; ; C.S.Supp.,1941, § 76-1011. ;

Assignments for Week Four (Feb. 13-15)

Casebook P. 300-305; Blog Post (formerly Handout 3)

Casebook p. 307-323; Blog Post (formerly Handout 4)

Assignments for Week Three (Feb. 6-8)

Casebook p. 237-248 (for background only); p. 251-276

Casebook p. 276-297

We will take 3 classes to get through both assignments. There is a lot here.

Assignments for Next Week

Property Week Two Assignments

1. Monday January 30

 Casebook P.124-129; 131-133 (Armory; Bridges, Sharman, McAvoy); P. 138-140

2. Tuesday January 31 & Wednesday February 1

Casebook p. 213-235 (gift) [probably take 2 classes to cover this assignment]

 

 

 

Up For Grabs Film

 Pro Tip: Pay careful attention to what the Public Address announcer says hen she welcomes fans to the game.

More Student Views on Property and Economic Justice

 Thank you for sharing so many excellent thoughts about Property Rights and Social Justice. I am going to add a few more student excerpts. These will be the last student responses I share on the blog. I look forward to our class discussion this coming Monday. Let's start our discussion by looking at the comments of Student G, Student H & Student I below.

Student A:

Economic justice is the idea that creating a fairer economy will make it more successful. The basis for this is that increasing fairness would allow all individuals to thrive and, as a result, allow the economy to thrive. One big debate in regard to economic justice is whether one must forcibly give up their earnings for the benefit of another and whether this would create fairness. A should not have any legal claim to any of B's earnings and private property. This is because only B should have a claim to their earnings and private property. If B were to decide to voluntarily give A some of their earnings and allow them to use their private property, then that is their decision. However, B should not be legally forced to do so. At the same time, with respect to taxes, it can be seen how B providing A with a portion of their earnings can be beneficial to society as a whole. Yet, much debate exists around whether forcing B to give to A would be fair. Moving on, the government exists to protect and secure private property. The government should not exist to take and redistribute private property. The reason for this is because an individual works hard to own their property. If the government were able to take and redistribute private property, then this would take away the incentive of working hard to own private property and decrease fairness.

Student B:

My personal concept of economic justice is that there is some sort of equality in everyone’s ability to earn a living. People will not have the same opportunities, so justice comes from the ability for every individual to earn money in whatever legal capacity that comes from. Not everyone will take advantage of their opportunities, so maybe that is what can make economics seem unfair. I personally do not believe that justice is found by making A’s earnings equal to B’s just because A has more than B. B has no right to take earnings or property that have been legally obtained by A unless B has some superseding right. 

I believe that the government exists to take and redistribute private property and protect it when necessary. The government is there to protect private property rights, but there is a point where the public good outweighs private property rights. In such cases, the government may take and redistribute the land to better the public. However, we trust that the government will protect our private property from those who have no claim to it and those who damage it. There is a balance in the government’s relationship with our private property.

Student C:

I do not believe anyone has a fair share of someone else’s property. Everyone should be able to own real property and independently manage private property. However, everyone should also pay taxes commensurate with income and gross net worth. Like the annoying homeowner’s association fee, we pay for the maintenance of our community and society. The government exists because of taxpayer funding, and its law protects our interests in property, among other functions. If we did not fund our police departments or court system, we would have no recourse for crimes and legal disputes regarding private property. Realistically, without the law, there would be no way to establish private property other than personally protecting it and hoping others respect your ownership.

In my view, economic justice is ensuring everyone can live with dignity and respect, which necessitates that all persons have access to housing, food, and healthcare. Taxes should fund the provision of these services. My reason for this is two-fold. First, on the altruistic level, every human has a right to life. People should not have to pay for the privilege of staying alive and having their most basic needs met. The second reason is utilitarian. Taxpayers already bear the cost of poverty. Taxpayer dollars go to hospitals for emergency medical bills unpaid by those who cannot afford preventative care and those who are homeless and exposed to the elements. Taxpayer dollars go to jail fees and police costs for petty thefts and crimes of poverty. If we take preventative measures, the net cost imposed on taxpayers will be lessened and we can maintain everyone’s dignity.

Student D:  To me economic justice is a balance. Everyone should have the equal opportunity of financial freedom, but given our history I don't believe it is possible to have complete equality when it comes to income and wealth. We are not perfect and I don't think our society will ever create such a Utopia where that balance exists. I think those who are extremely wealthy have a duty, a responsibility to share among society. No one needs as much money as Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, why not put their earnings to good use. Granted, both individuals have donated a large portion of wealth to charity such as the Bill and Melina Gates Foundation but there is still so much leftover. Again, Bill Gates has promised to give all his wealth to the foundation which I think is a very honorable thing to do, but we have yet to see it. I also think one who works hard and is successful should benefit from their hard work. But again some wealth is at such an extreme. Yes, they worked hard but a lot of it is also luck and timing and other individuals that helped them get there. My view conflicts here because I think wealth should be shared but also everyone has a right to what they earn.  

My view of private property tends to go back and forth with one another as well. Buying a house this past year has changed my view. I used to fully believe the amount of land one can buy should be regulated in some way. I mean who needs even 20 acres of land for just your house and enjoyment when you only need 1 acre to get everything you want. Why not use the rest for something good? But then I bought a house and boy do I like my private property. I like that its mine and no one should be on it unless we say so. Also, property taxes are insane. I am also a huge proponent of privacy. One owns their time and has a right to it. One owns their personal information and data and has a right to that. And, one owns their property and has a right to do what they want with it. But I also think society should do a better job at using and protecting land for the benefit of everyone. I'm not sure how that looks but it's a nice idea. 

Student E:

Like you, I am also a libertarian. If everyone owns something, then no one does. A good example of this is overfishing. According to articles I’ve read, international waters are the most overfished. Whales are the prime example. Their numbers have been depleted significantly because they were up for grabs by anyone and protected by no one. Perhaps this is the prime role of government – to protect resources (and their ownership) for future generations through common sense regulation.

I see private ownership as similar. At the heart of economic justice is incentive. Private ownership incentivizes hard work and care for land and chattels. Anything owned by the public is almost never cared for to the same degree as privately-owned property (especially in this country). Also, economic and technological advancements are driven by the desire to accumulate wealth. Economic justice is the ability to rise above poverty and focus on more than basic needs. The right to private ownership guarantees more people will live above the poverty line than any system that favors public property.

Student F: 

I understand economic justice as giving people what they deserve within a given social contract – particularly what material wealth or advantages to material wealth someone is entitled to. Justice is about establishing right relationships. In the case of economic justice, what right relationship a person or group has with access to the collective wealth of a society they are part of. Understanding what a person is entitled to I suspect should be measured by what they contribute to the commonwealth. 

I think human beings were created with the right of being stewards of the earth.  Part of being stewards will naturally involve individuals having the right to private ownership of property. Government exists to protect rights that are already there including private property rights. People entered into society to better approximate the natural law – a law that is evident by what is conducive to or hinders the well-being of an individual and their community.

Student G:

To be honest, I am incredibly torn on economic justice and private property. I am primarily conflicted because of my background. On one hand, I believe that people must be secure in the right to the fruits of their labor. No one (including the government) should be able to force you to give it to anyone else if you have legitimately attained it. I also struggle with this though, because I grew up in a single-parent household below the poverty line. It was not my parents’ fault for the situation we were put in, simply unfortunate circumstances. It is hard for me to justify people being allowed to accumulate mass wealth, that they may or may not have actually earned, while I have to pick and choose times to go to the doctor because I have no insurance. Sometimes I feel that wealth and private property should be distributed more equally, however I then realize how unethical it is to seize wealth from those that have legitimately accumulated it. It is not my parents’ fault for their situation but it is not the responsibility of others to fix it. I often feel myself weighing whether it is more unethical to take wealth from those who have plenty or allow those living in poverty to continue to suffer when at least some of their pain could be eased. I hope that this course will help me in answering these questions.

Student H: 

I believe that the proper role of government with respect to private property is the protection of the value of the property. This primarily should be the ability to own one's land and use it as the owner sees fit. However, in certain rare circumstances, I do believe eminent domain is justified, as long as the compensation and the reason is proper. Nevertheless, this should be a last resort and only for important community needs such as a new school. I do not believe that this power should be used as a means to take and redistribute to others, but as a last resort after doing everything possible to protect the property rights of the owner.

Student I:  Though a person in this country may have a right to acquire wealth and their own personal property, they also have a responsibility to contribute to the overall wellbeing of our country. To me, a fair system does not allow for a hoard of wealth for the top 1% of the population at the expense of the wellbeing of the 99%. There is, of course, a fine line between a country that fairly distributes wealth and a country that does not allow for freedom of personal property and social mobility. If the state takes an excess amount of a person's hard-earned income, it may take away an incentive of hard work which harms the wellbeing of the country overall.

      Though this may be the case, the fact of the matter is that some wealth in this country is not acquired through hard work. There are people who will work tirelessly throughout their life and may not see the same financial success as someone who was born into wealth. When is it fair to allow someone to reap the benefits of their labor and when is it fair to require them to give back to the country that allows them the freedom of personal property? Do people who make their own wealth earn their right to keep more of their money than someone who inherits wealth and must pay inheritance taxes? These are among the questions that I must research to gain a deeper understanding of my stance on economic justice. I hope to use this semester to learn more about the property laws of the United States and fill in the blanks in my knowledge of economic justice and the right to personal property.

 

One Last Student View

 Here is an excellent progressive view of economic justice and private property:

I think economic justice is a set of moral and economic principles that carry the ultimate goal of creating equal opportunities for all people to lead dignified, fulfilling, and sustainable lives free from concerns about their ability to meet basic needs. I think our country is extremely far from achieving widespread economic justice – while millions struggle to meet the basic needs of their families on a daily basis, a tiny minority hoards the majority of the country’s wealth and hides behind estate tax loopholes to avoid wealth redistribution.

 

I do think that one of the functions of the government is to take and redistribute private property.  This is because I believe that the government has responsibility to aid in the health and well-being of its citizens, especially its most vulnerable citizens (i.e., children, families, veterans, elderly, disabled, etc.).  I think there is a social, moral, and economic duty to invest in robust welfare and government programs, and ultimately, I think this investment creates a healthier and more sustainable society and economy for all of us. I think it is short-sighted and idealistic to suggest that we can achieve economic justice simply by shifting spending priorities – I think we need to take a serious look at the root causes of economic insecurity, and I believe the only way to make a sustainable change is through rigorous programs that address the underlying issues that contribute to poverty and economic instability.

 

One approach I believe would be an effective step toward achieving economic justice in the United States would be universal basic income (UBI) – a regular, guaranteed payment made to every citizen regardless of employment or economic status. This idea is often criticized for rewarding and incentivizing laziness, but that critique doesn’t account for the underlying causes and perpetuating factors of poverty and economic inequities. It is very possible in our economy to work very hard and have very little to show for it –it is also not uncommon for wealthy and privileged individuals to acquire incredible wealth without having to work themselves. I think a UBI as well as rigorous efforts to divert funds currently concentrated at the top of the wealth distribution would be an effective strategy to actually achieve some sort progress toward economic justice in the United States. I don’t think UBI would address the root causes of poverty, but I think it would provide enough alleviation to allow every citizen to achieve a standard of living above the poverty line and to allow the government to more effectively and sustainably work to target the root causes of poverty and economic instability (i.e., allow the government to respond rather than react to poverty crises).

 

Ultimately, I believe economic justice is about health, well-being, and basic needs and I think the government has a huge responsibility in achieving those goals through redistribution of private property.