Discussion Questions for Week 3 Takings

Economics Department Economics 66 Fall, 2010 Discussion Questions for Week 3 Takings 1. In Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit the Michigan Supreme court differentiated between takings for a “public use” and takings for a “public purpose” arguing that the latter, more broad-based concept was appropriate. It was this broader concept that allowed the taking of the private property of Poletown residents for the use of General Motors Corporation. Similar arguments were used in the important U.S. Supreme Court Case Kelo et al. v City of New London. Explain the logic used by the courts in these two cases. Is the notion of taking for a “public purpose” a good basis for exercise of eminent domain? (Note, be sure to read the dissents by Justices O’Connor and Thomas in the Kelo case). Should increased tax revenues or “new jobs” be considered public purposes? 2. The case of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992. After reading the summary of the case, address the following questions: a. In what sense was the action of the Coastal Council really a “taking”? b. How does the case meet the criteria developed by Justice Holmes in the Pennsylvania Coal case? c. How would the criteria laid out in the Miceli-Segerson paper apply to this case? 3. All beaches in California are owned by the state. However, presence of private property along beaches can make it difficult if not impossible for people to access some beaches without trespass. In several recent cases the state has demanded that property owners grant easements that allow beach access as a condition for, say, getting a building permit to add a garage. a. Is the addition of such a requirement a “taking”? b. How, if at all, should compensation be made if this is a taking? c. More generally, is beach “ownership” by the state appropriate? 4. In the HFH (not on the web site) case the court ruled that “the long settled state of zoning laws renders the possibility of change in zoning clearly foreseeable to purchasers of property, who discount their estimates of its value by the probability of such a change”. Hence, compensation for changes in zoning laws is unnecessary. Do you agree? More generally, how should expectations about regulations affect compensation for regulatory takings? A key case in this area is Penn-Central v. City of New York, so you should glance over that case