Here’s what’s on our radar screen today: Anthony Flint, How Zoning Won (Bloomberg) (“In 1926, the Supreme Court’s Euclid decision enshrined zoning in US cities. On its 100th anniversary, academics gathered to reflect on the landmark ruling’s mixed legacy.”)
Continue Reading Today’s Dirt Law Round-Up: Zoning, Public Use, and Penn Central History
On the day we celebrate Constitution Day (or should we say Khaaaaan-stitution Day?) we have to admit that pretty much nothing beats One Named Kirk’s reading of the Preamble.
KIRK: This was not written for chiefs.
Hear me! Hear this! Among my people, we carry many such words as this from many
As you already know, registration is also underway for the 22d Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, October 23-24, 2025, at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia.
The Conference is expressly designed to get legal academics and the nation’s best dirt law practitioners in the same room, discussing how legal scholarship and law
With the 100th anniversary of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. nearly upon us in 2026, we’ve put together a series of events designed to reexamine the case that set the stage for a century’s-worth of intense land use regulations and restrictions.
Are Euclid‘s assumptions and conclusions still valid? If the
The latest episode of the “Is That Even Legal?” podcast features a familiar voice, that of former Eminent Domain Podcast host, Clint Schumacher who joins host Bob Sewell as a guest to discuss takings by eminent domain, and by overregulation.
Clint joins the ITEL Podcast to discuss a situation that has been in
If you know, you know.
Sad birthday wishes to what just might be our most un-favorite decision ever, Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), which turns 46 today. This in addition to the unhappy Kelo-versary earlier this week. A takings and regulatory takings one-two punch!
Time
The key quote from the Illinois Appellate Court’s recent opinion in Robinson v. City of Chicago, No. 1-23-2174 (Mar. 24, 2025), in which a property owner challenged the inclusion of his property in a new Chicago historic preservation district? This seemingly innocuous sentence setting out the standard of review:
The plaintiff acknowledges that his
Nothing to do with the case, beyond the owner’s name.
But c’mon, its ABBA.
Ms. Money and her spouse own a home in San Marcos, Texas. That home is in a historic district.
But it turns out that some of that history isn’t pretty: one of the previous owners was “notoriously associated with the