What we’re reading today:
- Curbing abuse of eminent domain – A Denver Post editorial on a new Colorado statute designed to limit the power of the government to declare farmland “blighted” (“The new law says land that has been classified by the county assessor as agricultural land cannot be condemned for urban renewal. However, it makes an exception for agricultural land that is an enclave within cities and has had development around it for at least three years. We will have to see how the law shakes out in the coming years, but that seems to be an awfully big exception. That’s exactly the kind of land that usually needs the most protection from government.”).
- Court of Appeals eminent domain case set for June – The Columbia Spectator reports that oral argument in the Kaur case is set for June 1, 2010, at 2 pm ET. In that case, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (First Department) struck down the attempted taking of land north of Columbia University in New York City because of the record reflected overwhelming private benefit. Here is the Court of Appeals’ oral argument calendar. Our schedule and technology permitting, we will be live blogging the oral arguments like we did for the Atlantic Yards case.
- Book Review: Jeff Benedict’s ‘Little Pink House:’ The Back Story of the Kelo Case – Lawprof George Lefcoe has published a book review of LPH in the Connecticut Law Review, which is posted on SSRN.
Little Pink House is a fast paced account by Jeff Benedict of the events surrounding the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London. Along with tracking Benedict’s story line, this review also highlights some of the core legal and policy issues that are an important part of the story for law-trained readers. At the core of the tale is how Kelo and a handful of her neighbors challenged the New London Development Corporation’s (NLDC) use of eminent domain for the economic redevelopment of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. A libertarian-inspired public interest law firm named the Institute for Justice (IJ) agreed to represent the beleaguered property owners.
- J. David Breemer, Ripeness Madness: The Expansion of Williamson County‘s Baseless “State Procedures” Takings Ripenss Requirement to Non-Takings Claims, 41 Urban Lawyer 615 (2009). .
In this article, David Breemer critically examines the extension of Williamson County’s state procedures ripeness requirement to claims beyond takings claims. Breemer argues that the extension is improper given the origin and limited scope of the state procedures requirement, precedent establishing critical differences between the standards, injuries and remedies relevant to a takings claim and those applicable to other claims, and precedent allowing multiple causes of action from the same facts. Ultimately, Breemer concludes, the state procedures ripeness requirement must be abandoned because it is doctrinally bankrupt and dysfunctional in practice. In the meantime, courts must cease applying this takings ripeness doctrine to due process and equal protection property claims because there is no authority for this trend, and its amounts to a jurisdictional coup d’état that illegally rescinds 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for property owners.
ABA members can access the full article pdf here.