All upcoming and past seminars, conferences, and events here
October 20, 2010
As a follow up to the live panel discussion of the Supreme Court's "judicial takings" case,
Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Envt'l Protection, the ABA will be presenting a teleconference on the case.
I will again be moderating a panel with experts Professor John Echeverria (Vermont Law School), Jim Burling (Pacific Legal Foundation), Richard Frank (U.C. Davis Law School), and Dan Stengle (one of the attorneys who argued the case).
More details to be posted as they become available.
August 6, 2010
One of the featured CLE sessions at the 2010 American Bar Association annual meeting in San Francisco was the Section of State and Local Government Law's session on the beach renourishment case,
Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Envt'l Protection, a case involving "judicial takings" and ownership of beachfront land. The Section of Real Property, Trusts, and Estate Law co-sponsored the session.
I moderated a panel discussing the case and its implications. Also on the panel were Professor John Echeverria (Vermont Law School), Jim Burling (Pacific Legal Foundation), Richard Frank (U.C. Davis Law School), and Dan Stengle (one of the attorneys who argued the case).
May 6, 2010
I presented a session on Are Courts Waking Up To Property Rights? at the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association's Spring Seminar.
April 30, 2010
I moderated a presentation of the recently published book Takings International by Professor Rachelle Alterman, the Chair in Architecture/Town Planning at Technion Israel Institute of Technology.
In addition to Professor Alterman, the panel included Professor Russell Brown (University of Alberta) and Professor Bryan Schwartz (University of Manitoba) who gave details and criticisms of Canada's approach, Professor David Callies (University of Hawaii) discussing the Asia and Pacific approaches, and Professor Tom Roberts (Wake Forest University) comparing our homegrown system.
In a separate program on Land Use Hot Topics, I presented a paper
Recent Developments in Challenging the Right to Take in Eminent Domain.
These sessions were part of the ABA State and Local Government Law Section's Spring Meeting in Miami.
Enjoyed your real time coverage. I went in person to the oral arguments with students from my land use class. The Goldstein people hired a bus (maybe more than one) to bring people to the argument...the courtroom was packed and in an overflow situation. Many people had to watch on TV feeds in two other rooms. Along with some of my students, we gave up our seats at the request of Dan Goldstein and one of his lawyers...so we watched from the overflow room with other people from Brooklyn as well as attorneys, media and others interested in the argument.
It seemed to me that the Court spent a lot of time on whether they even had jurisdiction in this case. I expect some clarity to come from this one way or the other (they need to address it). Assuming they get passed this and go to the merits, I think they didn't care much about the public use argument, seems to me they already decided this one a long time ago.
The only argument that truly animated the Court was the constitutional requirement to provide low income housing and whether that applied here. This is a truly novel argument of many dimensions. This opened the door for the Court to ask specific questions about the public subsidies and exactly what they were underwriting in the project.
I understand from students who stayed in the courtroom that although there was appropriate decorum, the crowd had animated body language and a videographer was in the courtroom recording people's reactions to the Judges' questions and the attorney responses.
Patty Salkin
Posted by: Patty Salkin | October 14, 2009 at 01:04 PM
Prof Salkin should be aware that the Appellants won the jurisdiction issue with an emphatic ruling in the lower court (App. Div.)
Posted by: D. Goldstein | October 20, 2009 at 05:35 PM