Missouri has a peculiar statute that we wish were more widespread. In 2006, state legislators adopted the “heritage value” statute requiring courts award an additional 50% over fair market value as just compensation when property owned by a family for more than 50 years is taken by eminent domain. Thus, when heritage property is taken
Reading List For Sept 19 Guest Lecture For Hawaii Legal History Class
University of Hawaii lawprofs Carl Christensen and Williamson Chang have kindly asked me to visit their Legal History of Hawaii class (Law 520D) on Thursday, September 19, 2013, and guest lecture on the topic of “Land Reform and the ‘Public Use’ Factor in Eminent Domain: Midkiff, Kelo, County of Hawaii v. C & J
New Regulatory Takings Cert Petition: 9th Circuit Made Hash Of Penn Central
Here’s the cert petition filed earlier this week, asking the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in MHC Financing Ltd. P’ship v. City of San Rafael,714 P.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2013).
That’s the case in which the Ninth Circuit overturned the District Court’s ruling (after two trials) that MHC had proven a
Well, Who Didn’t See This Coming?
According to this story in the San Francisco Chronicle, “Eminent domain plan may have spooked investors,” Richmond, California’s plan to take underwater mortgages by eminent domain “Wall Street spurned its efforts to refinance its highly rated municipal bonds [A-minus rating], an unusual snub that cost the city nearly $4 million in lost
6th Cir: Coal Company Did Not Show It Was “Reasonably Foreseeable” That Coal Regulators Would Deny Mining Permits To Prevent Danger To Gas Pipeline
In Rockies Express Pipeline LLC v. 4.895 Acres of Land, No. 12-3069 (Aug. 15, 2013), the condemnor was a gas pipeline company delegated the power of eminent domain under a federal certificate of public convenience and necessity, and the property owners were the owners of several coal mines.
They disagreed about the danger posed
Materials From Today’s Eminent Domain In Hawaii Conference
Here are links to the cases and other materials (and more) we spoke about at today’s conference on Eminent Domain and Condemnation in Hawaii:
- Ilagan v. Ungacta (Guam v. 162.40 Square Meters of Land)
- Ilya Somin, The Judicial Reaction to Kelo, 4 Alb. Gov’t L. Rev. 1 (2011)
- Ilya Somin, The
Berman. Poletown. Kelo. Richmond. When Will They Ever Learn?
Check this out: according to a story in yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle (“Pricey homes in Richmond’s eminent domain plan“), someone has figured out exactly which properties in Richmond, California are going to get “helped” by Mortgage Resolution Partners and the city in their plan to take underwater mortgages by eminent domain.
Seems like
Mortgage Taking Tuesday – Mission: Impossible?
Your mission Dan, should you decide to accept it, is to review the competing op-eds about Mortgage Resolution Partners-backed plan for municipalities to take underwater mortgages by eminent domain, and decide which ones are good, and which ones are full of it.
New Federal Court Complaint Challenges Honolulu Grabbing Anti-Eminent Domain Signs Under “Stored Property” Ordinance
Here’s the Complaint, filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Honolulu in which a windward Oahu property owner challenges the City and County of Honolulu’s removal of her protest signs on her property.
The rub? She’s protesting the City’s condemnation of her property back in 2010. Her complaint alleges that the city “neither owns
Guest Post: More On The Two Federal Lawsuits Challenging The Underwater Mortgage Taking Scheme
Here is a deeper look at the two lawsuits filed lastweek in U.S. District Court in San Francisco against the City ofRichmond, California, for the city’s Mortgage Resolution Partners-backed plan to condemn underwater mortgages, specifically those held by out-of-state securitizedbonds, residential mortgage-backed securitization (RMBS) trusts. The first Complaint was brought by Wells Fargo and a