Скачать презентацию PROPERTY A SLIDES 2 -19 -15 Thursday Скачать презентацию PROPERTY A SLIDES 2 -19 -15 Thursday

54609aa92cc3d836cb56615447993558.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 45

PROPERTY A SLIDES 2 -19 -15 PROPERTY A SLIDES 2 -19 -15

Thursday Feb 19 Music: Michael Bublé, It’s Time (2005) Lunch Today: Meet on Brix Thursday Feb 19 Music: Michael Bublé, It’s Time (2005) Lunch Today: Meet on Brix @ 11: 55 Ayoub; Duke; Esmaili; Garcia; Kaleel Pecorella; Rodriguez; Usman Arches Reminder: Critique of Rev. Prob. 2 B Due Today @ 10 am

Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement • Federal Constitutional Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement • Federal Constitutional Background • State Public Use Standards • Kelo & Beyond • Kelo Majority & Kennedy Concurrence • Facts of Kelo & Application of Earlier Tests • Legal Analysis • Application to Poletown • Review Problem 2 D • Kelo Dissents & Merrill • Review Problem 2 G

Facts of Kelo Response to Run-Down Area/Econ. Difficulties in New London • Project = Facts of Kelo Response to Run-Down Area/Econ. Difficulties in New London • Project = Multi-Use Integrated Economic Development 1. Incorporates Office Space, Residences, Retail, Parking, Park, Museum, Marina, Hotel/Conference Center 2. Next to Pfizer Site, but Pfizer not Part of Project (cf. Poletown)

Facts of Kelo Response to Run-Down Area/Econ. Difficulties in New London • Plaintiffs = Facts of Kelo Response to Run-Down Area/Econ. Difficulties in New London • Plaintiffs = Homeowners Whose Lots are not Blighted 1. Under plan, becoming retail, office or parking 2. Primary claim is that shouldn’t be able to transfer from 1 private party to another if only purpose is to achieve economic development

BISCAYNE: DQ 2. 12 SUNRISE AT ADAMS KEY BISCAYNE: DQ 2. 12 SUNRISE AT ADAMS KEY

DQ 2. 12(a) (Biscayne) Legal Treatment of New London Project under Midkiff • Purpose? DQ 2. 12(a) (Biscayne) Legal Treatment of New London Project under Midkiff • Purpose? • Legitimate (Tie to HSWM) • Project Rationally Related to Purpose?

DQ 2. 12(a) (Biscayne) Legal Treatment of New London Project under Midkiff • Purpose? DQ 2. 12(a) (Biscayne) Legal Treatment of New London Project under Midkiff • Purpose? • Legitimate (Tie to HSWM) • Project Rationally Related to Purpose? Easy case under Midkiff (as are virtually all conceivable economic development cases).

DQ 2. 12(b) (Biscayne) Legal Treatment of New London Project under Poletown Tests I’ll DQ 2. 12(b) (Biscayne) Legal Treatment of New London Project under Poletown Tests I’ll leave specifics for you, BUT • New London probably a strong case to satisfy the tests b/c: • Great size & scope of project • Serious economic problems • Comprehensive planning • Kennedy references “Primary Beneficiary” test, so he presumably thinks Kelo facts meet test

DQ 2. 12(c) (Biscayne) Legal Treatment of New London Project under Hatchcock 1. Public DQ 2. 12(c) (Biscayne) Legal Treatment of New London Project under Hatchcock 1. Public Necessity: Project is important & only way to do project is through Eminent Domain? 2. Accountability: Private entity remains responsible to public for its use 3. Selection: Particular parcel(s) chosen based on facts of independent public significance.

DQ 2. 12(c) (Biscayne) Legal Treatment of New London Project under Hatchcock 1. Public DQ 2. 12(c) (Biscayne) Legal Treatment of New London Project under Hatchcock 1. Public Necessity: Project is important & only way to do project is through Eminent Domain • Importance of Project easy to defend • Only Way to Do? • Hard to assemble Project this big w/o Em. Dom unless it could work with gaps. • P 172: Case says most of land already purchased directly so Em. Dom is being used only for “unwilling owners. ” • BUT: Hatchcock itself addressed a 1300 -acre site and court said didn’t meet test. [Maybe OK to have gaps in industrial park? ]

DQ 2. 12(c) (Biscayne) Legal Treatment of New London Project under Hatchcock 1. Public DQ 2. 12(c) (Biscayne) Legal Treatment of New London Project under Hatchcock 1. Public Necessity: Project is important & only way to do project is through Eminent Domain 2. Accountability: Private entity remains responsible to public for its use. No evidence of this in case; seems unlikely. 3. Selection: Particular parcel(s) chosen based on facts of independent public significance?

DQ 2. 12(c) (Biscayne) Legal Treatment of New London Project under Hatchcock 1. Public DQ 2. 12(c) (Biscayne) Legal Treatment of New London Project under Hatchcock 1. Public Necessity: Project is important & only way to do project is through Eminent Domain 2. Accountability: Private entity remains responsible to public for its use. 3. Selection: Particular parcel(s) chosen based on facts of independent public significance? • OCR says not. • A lot of land in Q wasn’t blighted and was chosen simply to put to a better economic use.

Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement • Federal Constitutional Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement • Federal Constitutional Background • State Public Use Standards • Kelo & Beyond • Kelo Majority & Kennedy Concurrence • Facts of Kelo & Application of Earlier Tests • Legal Analysis • Application to Poletown • Review Problem 2 D • Kelo Dissents & Merrill • Review Problem 2 G

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Recap: MIDKIFF KELO • Midkiff decided in 1984 • Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Recap: MIDKIFF KELO • Midkiff decided in 1984 • Rational Basis = Test for “Public Use” in 5 th Amdt • Means “Public Use” Provides Almost no Limit on Eminent Domain • However, not very controversial at time • Kelo decided in 2005: • As noted, US more conservative & more concerned w Property Rts • USSCt very different than in 1984

US SCt 1984 2005 & Introduction to US SCt Abbreviations • Burger, CJ (1969) US SCt 1984 2005 & Introduction to US SCt Abbreviations • Burger, CJ (1969) (BGR)* Rehnquist CJ (1986) (RNQ)* • Rehnquist (1972) (RNQ)* Scalia (1986) (SCA)* • Powell (1972) (PWL)* Kennedy (1988) (KND)* • Brennan (1956) (BNN)* Souter (1990) (SOU)* • Marshall (1965) (MSH) Thomas (1991) (THS)* • White (1962) (WHT) Ginsberg (1993) (GIN) • Blackmun (1970) (BMN)* Breyer (1994) (BRY) • Stevens (1975) (STV)* • O’Connor (1981) (OCR)* * = Appointed by Republican President

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Recap: MIDKIFF KELO • Kelo essentially brought by Conservative Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Recap: MIDKIFF KELO • Kelo essentially brought by Conservative NGOs [Non. Governmental Organizations] Focused on Property Rights • NGOs represented homeowners (who can’t otherwise afford to take case to US SCt) • Hoped that change in Justices & American politics would lead USSCt to overrule or limit Midkiff

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Majority Opinion NARROW HOLDING • Upholds Specific New London Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Majority Opinion NARROW HOLDING • Upholds Specific New London Development Plan • Rejects Plaintiffs’ Claim that There Should Be Blanket Exception to Public Use Deference when Em. Dom Used for Economic Development • Rest is Dicta (Dicta, Schmicta)

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Majority Opinion Largely Reiterates Points from Earlier Cases • Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Majority Opinion Largely Reiterates Points from Earlier Cases • Reaffirms Berman and Midkiff • “Public Use” just means Public Purpose (P 175) • Assess plan as a whole; don’t look at individual parcels • Ending up in private hands not bar to “Public Use” • Private Ownership may be good way to accomplish public goals (P 178) • Actual use by public (e. g. , RR) constitutes Public Use, but not required

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Majority Opinion DQ 2. 13 & Deference Kelo majority Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Majority Opinion DQ 2. 13 & Deference Kelo majority gives legislatures “broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power. ” • Arguments we’ve seen supporting deference include: • Democratic Theory • Institutional Competence (See OCR P 181 -82: courts ill-equipped to evaluate efficiency of programs or necessity of using Em. Dom) • Federalism/Local Control: States can choose to have stricter rules if they want/need to better control their own municipalities (P 178; see also Federalism Discussion on P 176 -77)

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Majority Opinion DQ 2. 13 & Deference Kelo majority Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Majority Opinion DQ 2. 13 & Deference Kelo majority gives legislatures “broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power. ” • Dangers/concerns re broad deference include: • Corruption • Power of $$$/Lobbyists/Special Interests/Politically Connected • Arguably Renders Public Use Clause Meaningless • OCR Dissent: “Hortatory Fluff”; Redundant w Due Process Clause • THS Dissent: “Nullity”

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference Kelo majority gives Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference Kelo majority gives legislatures “broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power. ” • Today: I’ll go through limits suggested by Majority and by Justice Kennedy, then show they might apply to facts of Poletown. • Tomorrow: Analysis for Rev. Prob. 2 D (BISCAYNE): • Identify Facts that Majority or Kennedy Might Say Suggest Rational Basis Inappropriate • Discuss Whether, Overall, Enough Reasons for Concern to Forego Deference/Rational Basis

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Majority Opinion DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference • Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Majority Opinion DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference • If sole purpose is private benefit, not OK (P 174) • BUT OCR: Complicated determination; hard to tell (P 182) • Transfer from one citizen to another of one parcel b/c latter will put to more productive use: suspicious if outside of integrated development plan (Middle para. P 178) • List of Helpful Facts (P 177) (maybe problematic if not there? ): • State Statute authorizing Local Gov’ts to Use Em. Dom for Economic Development • Comprehensive Plan • Thorough Deliberation

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Majority Opinion DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference QUESTIONS Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Majority Opinion DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference QUESTIONS ON MAJORITY OPINION?

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy Concurrence DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference Overview of Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy Concurrence DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference Overview of Concurrence • KND seems to suggest more serious examination than ordinary deference: “meaningful rational basis review. ” (P 179) • Long discussion on P 179 -80 of possible considerations. • BUT refuses to articulate a specific set of rules or procedures, and OCR chides him for lack of guidance for future cases (P 182).

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy Concurrence DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference (Biscayne) Why Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy Concurrence DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference (Biscayne) Why is Kennedy Concurrence Especially Important?

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy Concurrence DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference KND’s Articulated Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy Concurrence DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference KND’s Articulated Concerns/Limits (1)No deference if clear showing that Em. Dom intended to favor a particular private party w only incidental or pretextual public benefit. (P 179) • Really arguing purpose is illegitimate b/c benefit to public is either: • Incidental = Trivial OR • Pretextual = False or Implausible • Like primary beneficiary test looking at both effects and purpose • OCR argues that this test is not helpful because public and private benefits so intertwined in economic development cases (P 183)

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy Concurrence DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference KND’s Articulated Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy Concurrence DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference KND’s Articulated Concerns/Limits (2) If plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism: • Close review of record required • Although presumption that govt acted reasonably remains • Triggers O’Connor’s “stupid staffer” comment; she means savvy officials can manage/manipulate record to hide problems.

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy Concurrence DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference KND’s Articulated Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy Concurrence DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference KND’s Articulated Concerns/Limits • (3) Might be private transfers where risk of favoritism so high, need presumption of invalidity • As opposed to (2), where he says even plausible accusation of favoritism doesn’t create this presumption. • No specific examples given!! • He follows this statement with list of facts on P 180 that are protections ag. “favoritism”; if some or all of these are missing, could argue “presumption of invalidity” should apply.

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy Concurrence DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference KND’s Articulated Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy Concurrence DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference KND’s Articulated Concerns/Limits • (4) Facts constituting protections against favoritism (P 180) a. Comprehensive plan b. Serious city-wide economic crisis c. Real economic benefit d. Identity of beneficiaries mostly unknown (like Midkiff) e. Elaborate procedures to produce reviewable record

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy Concurrence DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference KND’s Articulated Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy Concurrence DQ 2. 14: Limits on Deference KND’s Articulated Concerns/Limits • No deference if clear showing that ED intended to benefit particular private party w only incidental or pretextual public benefit. • Close review of record if plausible assertion of favoritism • Private transfers where risk of favoritism so high, presume invalidity • Facts from Kelo constituting protections a. Comprehensive plan b. Serious city-wide economic crisis c. Real economic benefit d. Identity of beneficiaries mostly unknown (like Midkiff) e. Elaborate procedures to produce reviewable record Qs on Concurrence?

Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement • Federal Constitutional Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement • Federal Constitutional Background • State Public Use Standards • Kelo & Beyond • Kelo Majority & Kennedy Concurrence • Facts of Kelo & Application of Earlier Tests • Legal Analysis • Application to Poletown (Setting Up Rev Prob 2 D for Tomorrow) • Review Problem 2 D • Kelo Dissents & Merrill • Review Problem 2 G

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Limits on Deference Applied to Facts of Poletown Majority’s Articulated Federal “Public Use” Standards: Limits on Deference Applied to Facts of Poletown Majority’s Articulated Concerns/Limits • If sole purpose is private benefit, not OK: P • Transfer from one citizen to another of one parcel b/c latter will put to more productive use: suspicious if outside of integrated development plan: P • List of Helpful Facts (maybe problematic if not there): • State Statute authorizing Em. Dom for econ. development: P • Comprehensive Plan & Thorough Deliberation: P

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Limits on Deference Applied to Facts of Poletown KND’s Articulated Federal “Public Use” Standards: Limits on Deference Applied to Facts of Poletown KND’s Articulated Concerns/Limits • No deference if clear showing that ED intended to benefit particular private party w only incidental or pretextual public benefit. P • Close review of record if plausible assertion of favoritism P • Risk of favoritism so high, presume invalidity: P ? ? ?

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Limits on Deference Applied to Facts of Poletown KND’s Articulated Federal “Public Use” Standards: Limits on Deference Applied to Facts of Poletown KND’s Articulated Concerns/Limits • Facts from Kelo constituting protections (P 180) a. Comprehensive plan: Not P b. Serious city-wide economic crisis: P c. Real economic benefit: P d. Identity of beneficiaries mostly unknown (like Midkiff): Not P e. Elaborate procedures to produce reviewable record: Unclear

Federal “Public Use” Standards: Limits on Deference Applied to Facts of Poletownm Hard Q Federal “Public Use” Standards: Limits on Deference Applied to Facts of Poletownm Hard Q re Poletown: Is acceding to GM’s specific demands “favoritism” or sensible way to achieve big economic benefit?

Chapter 3 Materials Posted • Supplemental Material Page Chapter) (Whole on Course • Updated Chapter 3 Materials Posted • Supplemental Material Page Chapter) (Whole on Course • Updated Syllabus • Updated Assignment Sheet • Updated List of Available Sample Exam Qs for Me to Review • I’ll Lecture Through Chapter Intro Tomorrow; You Can Skim

Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement • Federal Constitutional Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement • Federal Constitutional Background • State Public Use Standards • Poletown • Hatchcock • Review Problems 2 B & 2 C • Kelo & Beyond

Review Problem 2 C Redwood (Landowners) v. Arches (City) • VH is a run-down Review Problem 2 C Redwood (Landowners) v. Arches (City) • VH is a run-down neighborhood in city of Kirkland. • Almost all the buildings in VH contain functioning businesses and residences • BUT highest rate of prostitution and drug-related crime in the city. • City would like to open a drug rehab center in VH, but cannot afford to do so. • Between DF Sessions, David runs chain of pvt drug rehab centers. • D tried unsuccessfully for several years to buy land in VH to open a center.

Review Problem 2 C Redwood (Landowners) v. Arches (City) • D proposed that city Review Problem 2 C Redwood (Landowners) v. Arches (City) • D proposed that city use Em. Dom to buy an appropriate lot in VH: • Then resell lot to D (at fair market value) • D would use lot to open one of his rehab centers. • He suggested six possible sites (twelve square city blocks each). • The city agreed to the proposal; chose the suggested site … • furthest from any school • and that had the highest crime rate. Discuss Application of Hatchcock Criteria to These Facts

Critique of Review Problem 2 C (Shenandoah) • See General Instructions @ Bottom of Critique of Review Problem 2 C (Shenandoah) • See General Instructions @ Bottom of Assignment Sheet • Paragraphs 1 & 2: Address Arguments Favoring the Landowners (involving any of the three “Situations”) • Paragraphs 3 & 4: Address Arguments Favoring the City (involving any of the three “Situations”) • Paragraph 5: Your Choice • Written Submission Due by E-Mail Saturday 2/21 @ 10 a. m. • E-Mail me if Qs

Review Problem 2 C Redwood (Landowners) v. Arches (City) Public Necessity: Project is important Review Problem 2 C Redwood (Landowners) v. Arches (City) Public Necessity: Project is important & only way to do project is through Em. Dom?

Review Problem 2 C Redwood (Landowners) v. Arches (City) Accountability: Private entity remains responsible Review Problem 2 C Redwood (Landowners) v. Arches (City) Accountability: Private entity remains responsible to public for its use?

Review Problem 2 C Redwood (Landowners) v. Arches (City) Selection: Particular parcel(s) chosen based Review Problem 2 C Redwood (Landowners) v. Arches (City) Selection: Particular parcel(s) chosen based on facts of independent public significance?

Review Problem 2 C Redwood (Landowners) v. Arches (City) 1. Public Necessity: Project is Review Problem 2 C Redwood (Landowners) v. Arches (City) 1. Public Necessity: Project is important & only way to do project is through Eminent Domain? 2. Accountability: Private entity remains responsible to public for its use 3. Selection: Particular parcel(s) chosen based on facts of independent public significance. Strongest “Situation” for City? [I’ll Leave for You]