- “An Innovative Way to Title Property in Poor Countries” [Ian Vasquez on Peter Schaefer and Clay Schaefer Cato study]
- Berman v. Parker, “1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that approved large-scale modern urban renewal”, facilitated a bulldozer redevelopment of Washington, D.C.’s SW now viewed as “crushing failure” [Gideon Kanner]
- Time for a radical step: strip local government of its project-blocking powers [Edward Glaeser, Cato]
- When reporting on European anti-fracking movements, try not to think of a Bear [Jonathan Adler]
- “The EPA wants to redefine ‘the waters of the United States’ to mean virtually any wet spot in the country.” [M. Reed Hopper and Todd Gaziano, WSJ] Overcriminalization, EPA, and wetlands: the Jack Barron case [Right on Crime video]
- Exhaustion of state remedies on takings: “Supreme Court Should Remove Kafka-esque Burden to Vindicating Property Rights” [Ilya Shapiro and Trevor Burrus]
- “Proposition 65 can spell bankruptcy for many California small business owners” [Mark Snyder, Sacramento Bee]
Posts Tagged ‘eminent domain’
Environmental roundup
- California resists idea of charging market-clearing rate for water — too much like economics — and instead encourages tattling on neighbors [New York Times, Coyote]
- Academia smitten by notion of “climate reparations” [Peter Wood, Minding the Campus]
- Costly market intervention: “Minnesota doubles down on nation’s top biodiesel law” [Watchdog]
- Reusable grocery bags have their problems for sanitation and otherwise, but California contemplates banning the alternatives [Katherine Mangu-Ward, Steven Greenhut, Reason]
- Coming: film about Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain case [Nick Gillespie, Ilya Somin]
- 45 years later: the famous 1969 fire on the Cuyahoga became a fable for its age [Jonathan Adler on the Cuyahoga]
- Should beachfront owners have to open their land to all comers? [NY Times “Room for Debate”]
- Plus: “EPA has no business garnishing wages without due process” [Examiner editorial, earlier]
Maryland backs off eminent domain to seize TV show
The state legislature adjourned last week having abandoned a threat to seize the hit TV show “House of Cards” through the use of eminent domain, with negotiations over the extent of tax subsidies to the show still hanging in part. I’ve got an update at Cato, with specific attention to the use of eminent domain to confiscate moveable and intangible assets, as opposed to land; in earlier episodes, Maryland has gone after the Baltimore Colts football team (which escaped) and the Preakness horse race (which agreed to stay).
Maryland vows eminent domain to seize “House of Cards”
Kind of like Venezuela with Old Bay seasoning: “Responding to a threat that the “House of Cards” television series may leave Maryland if it doesn’t get more tax credits, the House of Delegates adopted budget language Thursday requiring the state to seize the production company’s property if it stops filming in the state. … Del. William Frick, a Montgomery County Democrat, proposed the provision, which orders the state to use the right of eminent domain to buy or condemn the property of any company that has claimed $10 million or more credits against the state income tax. The provision would appear to apply only to the Netflix series, which has gotten the bulk of the state credits.” [Baltimore Sun, Washington Post, earlier citing David Boaz]
Happy trails, with paid-for takings
Environmental roundup
- Behind costly EPA crackdown on wood-burning stoves, a whiff of sweetheart lawsuits? [Larry Bell]
- Reminder: California’s Prop 65 doesn’t actually improve public health, makes lawyers rich, and harasses business [Michael Marlow, WSJ]
- “What I learned from six months of GMO research: None of it matters” [Nathanael Johnson, Grist]
- Eminent domain threatens store owner in Fire Island’s Saltaire [NYP]
- In case you haven’t seen this one: chemical content of all-natural foods [James Kennedy Monash]
- “The court ordered that the county pay the turtles’ attorneys fees.” [Dan Lewis, Now I Know]
- “On the government’s books, the switch [from steel to aluminum in Ford’s new F-150 pickup] is a winner because MPG goes up.” [William Baldwin, Forbes]
“Rails to trails” maneuver was a taking
So will the federal government pay just compensation? The Supreme Court may decide that question in the pending case of Brandt v. U.S., in which the Cato Institute has filed an amicus brief. [Ilya Shapiro, Cato]
Environmental roundup
- Did we all make the wrong career choice by not becoming environmental law specialists at the University of Maryland School of Law? [@VinumLex]
- “EPA preparing to unleash a deluge of new regulations” [Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller]
- “The state of humanity is improving. Fast. Let us show you the evidence.” [New HumanProgress.org website from Cato, related essay and Twitter account]
- Long-running eminent domain suit over Centralia, Pa. mine fire settles [AP]
- Federal agencies’ entry into consent decrees with enviro groups (“sue and settle” in Chamber’s terminology) ties up more land than ever [Stephen Moore, WSJ]
- San Diego, L.A., Austin among cities to ban sales of companion animals in pet shops [International Business Times; Maggie Thurber, watchdog.org (Toledo, Ohio)]
- As UK energy prices soar, chimney sweeps return [Marian Tupy, Cato]
Environmental roundup
- Voters in state of Washington today consider I-522, latest attempt to mandate GMO food labeling [Jacob Grier, Umlaut; Baylen Linnekin, Reason; earlier including my take on failed California initiative Prop 37] Which Michael Pollan should we listen to? [Jon Entine]
- Ilya Somin in Cato Supreme Court Review on two big takings cases Koontz and Arkansas Game & Fish, both won by property owners in last year’s Supreme Court term [article on SSRN, video and podcast of panel]
- “The Conservative Record on Environmental Policy” [Jonathan Adler, The New Atlantis]
- Regulatory power grab foiled: “West Virginia chicken farmer wins EPA lawsuit over runoff” [AP]
- Defendants fight back in Louisiana coastal marshes suit [John Maginnis, Shreveport Times; earlier here, here, and here]
- Lawsuits under way: “‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’ Blamed for Mysterious Symptoms in Cape Cod Town” [ABC]
- Want affordable housing and plenty of it? Unleash the cranes [Ed Glaeser, NYT “Room For Debate”]
Environmental roundup
- California: “Governor [Brown] signs Prop. 65 toxic chemical warning reform” [Sacramento Business Journal] What finally passed was a minuscule tweak mostly aimed at the law’s application to food and alcohol [Bruce Nye, Cal Biz Lit] Court helps in baby food case [JD Supra]
- “Taxpayer-Funded Journal Walks Back BPA Cancer Claim After Statistical Meltdown” [Trevor Butterworth]
- Recalling when the federal government (along with the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations] funded an attack on the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause [Gideon Kanner, more]
- CEQA reform [Calif. enviro review] in baby steps at most for now [SF Chronicle, Mercury News, L.A. StreetsBlog, Daily News, PublicCEO, Planetizen]
- Under decisions by the CPSC interpreting CPSIA, you’re probably not going to be able to make your product for kids out of recycled materials [Nancy Nord]
- “EPA Fares Well in D.C. Circuit” [Adler]
- Mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods are a bad idea [not just me saying that, but Scientific American editors; earlier]