jsinger – Page 60 – Joseph William Singer

Legislative Responses to Kelo

September 26, 2009 / Takings

In response to the Kelo decision, almost all states have passed legislation or constitutional amendments that limit the power of municipalities to take property for economic development purposes. Elisabeth Sperow, The Kelo Legacy: Political Accountability, Not Legislation, Is the Cure, 38 McGeorge L. Rev. 405, 418-422 (2007). The legislation limiting eminent domain powers falls into several categories; some states passed laws in just one of these categories and others passed more than one type of limitation. First, some states repudiated Kelo by prohibiting the use of eminent domain to take property from one person to transfer it to another person if the taking is for economic development purposes, such as increased tax revenue or additional jobs. See, e.g., Alaska Stat. §§09.55.240(d), 29.35.030; 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 30/5-5-5(c); Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 1, § 816; N.H. Rev. Stat. § 162-K:2(IX-a)(b); Vt. Stat. tit. 12, § 1040(a). Second, some states adopted Justice …

Legislative Responses to Kelo Read More »

No taking to prevent construction on a floodplain

September 26, 2009 / Takings

The Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts held that it was not a taking to prevent an owner from building a house on a floodplain when construction would exacerbate flooding to neighboring property. Gove v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 831 N.E.2d 865 (Mass. 2005).

Palazzolo remand

September 26, 2009 / Takings

On remand, the Rhode Island trial court found that development of Palazzolo’s salt marsh land south of a shallow, tidal pond would constitute a public nuisance because it would inhibit the “valuable filtering system regarding water runoff containing pollutants and nitrogen from adjacent land.” Palazzolo v. State, 2005 WL 1645974, at*3 (R.I. Super. Ct. 2005). The court also found that half of the property was below the mean high water line, making it tidal land subject to the public trust doctrine which defines such lands as owned by the public and not subject to private development at all. Finally, the court found that, although one upland site could be developed, almost none lower lots could ever have been profitably developed because of the extraordinary engineering costs involved in draining the site and preparing the site to support structures. Thus, there was no taking of property

Designation of land as “park” or “plaza” in recorded plat creates appurtenant easement in neighbors

September 26, 2009 / Servitudes

A developer sold properties in a subdivision on the island of Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, after recording a map of the area showing the lots and the streets. Three irregularly-shaped areas that wereabout five times the size of the lots on the map were labeled as”parks” and one was called a “plaza.” Those properties were never developed and remained wooded over the years. The lots were all sold but not in the manner envisioned on the map; many lots were grouped together so that the average parcel is now about the size of the parklots. Fifty years later, an owner of the “plaza” lot sought to sell it to an buyer who wanted to build a single-family home on it. The neighbors sued, arguing that the designation of the property as a plaza meant that they owned an negative easement prohibiting development of the lot for residential purposes and an …

Designation of land as “park” or “plaza” in recorded plat creates appurtenant easement in neighbors Read More »

Subprime mess deters property development

September 26, 2009 / Mortgages

Costco CEO Jim Sinegal complains that it is hard for the company to buy new real estate to open new stores because “in many instances nobody knows who owns the land anymore.” read article

Trespass and the right to roam

September 20, 2009 / Trespass

We generally take for granted that owners have the power to exclude non-owners from their land. But at one time in the United States,unenclosed and undeveloped land was open to the public for the purpose of hunting, gathering kindling and berries, and walking. Eric Freyfogle, The Lost Right to Roam, in On Private Property: Finding Common Ground on the Ownership of Land 29 (2007). Today, about half the states still allow hunting on private land unless the owner has posted “no trespassing” signs. Mark R.Sigmon, Hunting and Posting on Private Land in America, 54 Duke L.J. 549(2004). Moreover, owners who wanted to protect their fields from wandering cattle originally had to fence them out; they had no right to complain that a trespass had occurred when cattle wandered onto their property. Nor could railroads insist that cattle owners prevent them from intruding on train tracks. See, e.g., Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad Co. v. Peacock, 25 Ala.229 (1854); Macon & …

Trespass and the right to roam Read More »

Personal property–who own coins that might have been stolen from the government?

September 16, 2009 / Personal Property

Rare coins, possibly stolen: does the current possessor have the burden of showing that they were obtained legally or does the prior owner (the United States) have the burden of showing that they were stolen? A court rules that possession, indeed, is 9/10 of the law. read article

Bad faith adverse possession unleashes backlash and law reform in Colorado

September 16, 2009 / Adverse Possession

An ex-judge apparently deliberated encroached onto neighboring property and took ownership of the border strip by adverse possession, creating a firestorm of protest in Colorado and a new state statute prohibiting adverse possession in the absence of good faith. read article

Public use case settled

September 16, 2009 / Takings

Long Branch, New Jersey approves a settlement of a standing dispute about use of eminent domain to take homes to transfer to private developers. read article Consent order issued in the Long Branch case

Author name: jsinger