- When government taking of land deprives a community association of a stream of income, is that a taking? [Ilya Shapiro and Trevor Burrus on Mariner’s Cove Townhomes Association v. U.S.; Tabarrok, Somin] “The Takings Clause Has No Expiration Date” [Burrus on Mehaffy v. U.S.] Plot of beloved Australian film The Castle hinges on eminent domain [Wikipedia via Jon Marco, WhatCulture]
- Once-hot Oil Drum blog signs off: “Peak oil arguments seem to have peaked well before oil and gas supplies.” [Jonathan Adler, Mark Perry, Mark Mills]
- Sorting out myths about fracking [Ronald Bailey] “DOE study: Fracking chemicals didn’t taint water” [Pennsylvania; AP]
- More about consent decrees between regulatory agencies and the environmental groups that sue them [Chris Prandoni/Capital Research Center, earlier]
- Debunking a study on genetically modified pig feed [Mark Lynas]
- Is the EPA even-handed as between FOIA requests from left and right? (part II) [Jillian Kay Melchior, earlier]
- D.C. scales back, but doesn’t abolish, minimum parking requirements for new in-town development, criticized by New Urbanists and some libertarians alike [Greater Greater Washington]
Filed under: consent decrees, eminent domain, environment, Environmental Protection Agency, land use and zoning, oil industry, Washington D.C.
One Comment
>When government taking of land deprives a community association of a stream of income, is that a taking? [Ilya Shapiro and Trevor Burrus on Mariner’s Cove Townhomes Association v. U.S.;
[end of quote]
The libertarians raise a meritorious question. In the case of flood plains, however, taxpayer advocates might legitimately counter:
Must taxpayers also pay the imputed value of previous and prospective taxpayer subsidies, eg subsidized flood insurance, flood-control public works, and disaster relief?