Here's what we're reading today:
- As we hoped, our RLUIPA gurus have posted on a recent 11th Circuit case about Williamson County ripeness and RLUIPA - "Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Ripeness Requirements for RLUIPA and Constitutional Land Use Claims."
- More background from Professor Gideon Kanner on "The Taking Issue," a publication which we noted is being recognized in an upcoming conference at Touro Law School, "Helping the Bear, Or 'The Taking Issue' Was a Failed Propaganda Screed. So Why Is It Being Celebrated?" Take heart, Professor, with speakers like Mike Berger, Dave Breemer, Richard Epstein, and Steve Eagle, among others, the conference will be sure to take a realistic look at The Taking Issue.
- From lawprof Shaun Martin, thoughts about the Ninth Circuit's 2-1 decision in the Drakes Bay Oyster Company case out of the National Seashore in Marin County, California. In that decision, the panel held that the courts have no jurisdiction to review the Secretary of the Interior's decision to not renew the oyster farm's permit.
- Our friends at the California Eminent Domain Report and the New Jersey Condemnation Law Blog have reported on a recent Cal App case about the difference between precondemnation damages and inverse condemnation. From Joseph Grather in NJ: "Cal App Ct Denies Pre-Condemnation Damages." From Brad Kuhn in Cal: "A Cautionary Tale on Alleging Precondemnation Damages Versus a De Facto Taking."
