Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Split Apart: How Regulations Designated Populations to Different Parts of the City Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Revitalizing Land Use Law: The Burdens-Benefits Ratio Principle

verfasst von : Ronit Levine-Schnur

Erschienen in: One Hundred Years of Zoning and the Future of Cities

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

As a way of celebrating its centenary, I sketch out a vision of how to revitalize land use and zoning law. Such a vision is called for not merely because of the marking of 100 years of zoning. Due to the immense impact land use laws have on human lives and their surroundings, it is crucial to regenerate the land use law system and to ground it within an ethical foundation. A land use law system should be based on an ethical commitment to fairness and sustainability. It should be guided by principles of democracy and transparency; by norms of accessibility, diversity, and density; and by a requirement to preserve a fair ratio between the distribution of burdens and the allocation of benefits. This chapter’s focus is on the latter principle, which is demonstrated by two examples: on how to substantiate development agreements, and on how to analyze the distributive effect of eminent domain.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Checks and Balances in Planning Decentralization: Lessons from Ontario
Fußnoten
1
This Section is based on Levine-Schnur (in press-a).
 
2
Such a requirement was discussed in Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 911 P.2d 429, 450–51 (Cal. S.C. 1996). The California Supreme Court held that the City’s imposition of a “fee in lieu of art” to support art in public places to be a requirement that is akin to traditional land-use regulations. In CC [HP] (TA) 1115/96 the Constructors and Builders Association in Tel Aviv Yafo v. The Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality (4.5.1997) (Isr.), an Israeli District Court denied the local government’s directive according to which the planning board will not grant approval for public or large-scale residential projects unless artistic elements valued at the equivalent of 1 per cent of the total value of construction are provided, as a requirement that the local municipality was not authorized to pose.
 
3
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013).
 
4
CA 7368/06 Dirot Yokra, Inc. v. The Mayor of the Municipality of Yavne (27.6.2011) (Isr.).
 
5
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005).
 
6
Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987).
 
7
Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).
 
8
Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540, 545 (1983).
 
9
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005).
 
10
I refer here to a benefit principle which is different from the one suggested by Thomas Beatley (Beatley, 1988, p. 84) (“The benefit principle states that those who reap the benefits of public projects ought to bear their costs in direct proportion to the level of benefits received”).
 
11
See, AdminC (TA) 2111-09 Rosenblum (Goren) v. Tel-Aviv Yafo Municipality (19.2.2012) (Isr.); AdminC (TA) 31405-09-13 Mindleen v. Tel-Aviv Yafo Municipality (10.4.2014) (Isr.).
 
12
Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26.
 
13
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469.
 
14
“Formalized” or “titled” land refers to land that is listed in an official land record, and hence its owners are publicly known (cf, Merrill & Smith, 2016, pp. 857–881).
 
Literatur
Beatley, T. (1988). Development exactions and social justice. In R. Alterman (Ed.), Private supply of public services (pp. 83–95). New York: New York University Press.
Beatley, T. (2012). Green urbanism: Learning from European cities. Washington DC: Island Press.CrossRef
Becher, D. (2014). Private property and public power: Eminent domain in Philadelphia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Been, V. (1991). ‘Exit’ as a constraint on land use exactions: Rethinking the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Columbia Law Review, 91(3), 473–545.CrossRef
Been, V. (1992). What’s fairness got to do with it? Environmental justice and the siting of locally undesirable land uses. Cornell Law Review, 78, 1001–1085.
Bell, A., & Parchomovsky, G. (2001). Givings. The Yale Law Journal, 111(3), 547–618.CrossRef
Bell, A., & Parchomovsky, G. (2006). The uselessness of public use. Columbia Law Review, 106(6), 1412–1449.
Boustan, L. P. (2016). Competition in the promised land: Black migrants in Northern Cities and labor markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Calabresi, G., & Melamed, A. D. (1972). Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: One view of the Cathedral. Harvard Law Review, 85, 1089–1128.CrossRef
Callies, D. L., Curtin, D. J., & Tappendorf, J. A. (2003). Bargaining for development: A handbook on development agreements, annexation agreements, land development conditions, vested rights, and the provision of public facilities. Washington, DC: Oryx/Greenwood.
Callies, D. L., & Tappendorf, J. A. (2000). Unconstitutional land development conditions and the development agreement solution: Bargaining for public facilities after Nollan and Dolan. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 51, 663–696.
Campbell, H. (2012). ‘Planning ethics’ and rediscovering the idea of planning 2. Planning Theory, 11(4), 379–399.CrossRef
Chen, D. L., & Yeh, S. (2012). Expropriation, inequality, and growth: The economic impacts of eminent domain. NBER Papers.
Clodfelter, P. A., & Sullivan, E. J. (2014). Substantive due process through the just compensation clause: Understanding Koontz’s ‘special application’ of the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions by tracing the doctrine’s history. The Urban Lawyer, 46(3), 569–624.
Crompton, J. L. (2001). The impact of parks on property values: A review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(1), 1–31.
Du, J., Thill, J. C., Feng, C., & Zhu, G. (2016). Land wealth generation and distribution in the process of land expropriation and development in Beijing, China. Urban Geography, 1–21. doi:10.​1080/​02723638.​2016.​1228373.
Echeverria, J. D. (2014). Koontz: The very worst takings decision ever. NYU Environmental Law Journal, 22, 1–56.
Epstein, R. A. (1985). Takings: Private property and the power of eminent domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The just city. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Fennell, L. A. (2014). Agglomerama. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2014(6), 1373–1414.
Fennell, L. A., & Peñalver, E. M. (2014). Exactions creep. The Supreme Court Review, 2013(1), 287–358.CrossRef
Fenster, M. (2006). Regulating land use in a constitution shadow: The institutional contexts of exactions. Hastings Law Journal, 58, 729–776.
Fenster, M. (2011). Failed exactions. Vermont Law Review, 36, 623–648.
Fischel, W. A. (2000). Zoning and land use regulation. In B. Bouckaert & G. De Geest (Eds.), Encyclopedia of law and economics (Vol. II). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Bar.
Fischler, R. (2007). Development controls in Toronto in the nineteenth century. Urban History Review / Revue D’histoire Urbaine, 36(1), 16–31.CrossRef
Frieden, B. J., & Sagalyn, L. B. (1991). Downtown, Inc: How America rebuilds cities. Boston: MIT Press.
Frischmann, B. M., & Lemley, M. A. (2007). Spillovers. Columbia Law Review, 107, 257–302.
Gans, H. J. (1982). Urban villagers: Group and class in the life of Italian-Americans. New York; London: The Free Press.
Gotham, K. F. (2001). A city without slums: Urban renewal, public housing, and downtown revitalization in Kansas City, Missouri. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 60(1), 285–316.CrossRef
Gramling, R., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1992). Opportunity -threat, development, and adaptation: Toward a comprehensive framework for social impact assessment. Rural Sociology, 57(2), 216–234.CrossRef
Hall, P. (2002). Cities of tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century. Hoboken: Wiley.
Hamilton, B. W. (1975). Property taxes and the Tiebout hypothesis: Some empirical evidence. In E. S. Mills & W. E. Oates (Eds.), Fiscal zoning and land use controls: The economic issues (Vol. 13). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Henderson, J. V. (1985). The impact of zoning policies which regulate housing quality. Journal of Urban Economics, 18(3), 302–312.CrossRef
Howard, S. E., & Osborn, F. J. (1965). Garden cities of to-morrow. London: MIT Press.
Kaplinsky, E., Tucker, E., Muir, J., & Ziff, B. (2012). The Zoroastrian Temple in Toronto: A case study in land use regulation, Canadian-Style. In Property on trial: Canadian cases in context (p. 223). Toronto: Irwin Law for the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History.
Karkkainen, B. C. (2002). Toward a smarter NEPA: Monitoring and managing government’s environmental performance. Columbia Law Review, 102, 903–972.CrossRef
Kelly, D. B. (2011). Acquiring land through eminent domain: Justifications, limitations, and alternatives. In K. Ayotte & H. E. Smith (Eds.), Research handbook on the economic analysis of property law (pp. 344–371). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kmiec, D. W. (1996). Inserting the last remaining pieces into the takings puzzle. William & Mary Law Review, 38, 995–1046.
Levine-Schnur, R. (2013). Law, contracts, and urban planning: Legal aspects of development agreements between local authorities and private developers. Jerusalem: Floersheimer Studies, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Levine-Schnur, R. (2014). Agreements between local governments and private entrepreneurs as a means for urban development. Unpublished Dissertation on file with author.
Levine-Schnur, R. (in press-a). Revitalizing land use law: Introductory notes. Journal of Law and Social Policy.
Levine-Schnur, R. (in press-b). Winners and losers in takings for pure public uses: An empirical examination.
Levine-Schnur, R., & Ferdman, A. (2015). On the just distribution of land use rights. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 28(2), 317–342.CrossRef
MacLeod, A. J. (2012). Identifying values in land use regulation. Kentucky Law Journal, 101, 55–112.
Makeilski, S. J. (1966). The politics of zoning: The New York experience. Metropolitan Series No. 4. New York: Columbia University Press.
Makuch, S. M. (2016). The disappearance of planning law in Ontario. In A. Smit & M. Valiante (Eds.), Public interest, private property: Land and planning in Canada (pp. 87–103). Vancouver; Toronto: UBC Press.
Merrill, T. W., & Smith, H. E. (2016). Property: Principles and policies (3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.
Metcalf, C. (2015). The (Ir) relevance of constitutional protection for property rights? Compensation for takings in Canada and the United States. University of Toronto Law Journal, 65(3), 143–185.
Moore, A. A. (2013a). Trading density for benefits: Section 37 agreements in Toronto. University of Toronto: Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance Perspective.
Moore, A. A. (2013b). Trading density for benefits: Toronto and Vancouver compared. University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
Morgan, E. (2012). The sword in the zone: Fantasies of land-use planning law. University of Toronto Law Journal, 62(2), 163–200.CrossRef
Mulvaney, T. M. (2016). On bargaining for development. Florida Law Review Forum, 67, 66–77.
Mumford, L. (1961). The city in history: Its origins, its transformations, and its prospects. Brace & World: Harcourt.
Nolon, S. F. (2015). Bargaining for development post-Koontz: How the supreme court invaded local government. Florida Law Review, 67, 171–220.
Olmsted, F. L. (2013). Public parks and the enlargement of towns, American Social Science Association 1870. In M. Larice & E. Macdonald (Eds.), The urban design reader (pp. 36–44). Routledge.
Ostrow, A. P. (2008). Judicial review of local land use decisions: Lessons from RLUIPA. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 31, 717–760.
Parchomovsky, G., & Siegelman, P. (2012). Cities, property, and positive externalities. William & Mary Law Review, 54, 211–262.
Pendall, R. (2000). Local land use regulation and the chain of exclusion. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(2), 125–142.CrossRef
Pritchett, W. E. (2003). The ‘public menace’ of blight: Urban renewal and the private uses of eminent domain. Yale Law & Policy Review, 21(1), 1–52.
Revesz, R. L., & Livermore, M. A. (2008). Retaking rationality: How cost-benefit analysis can better protect the environment and our health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rose, C. M. (1983). Planning and dealing: Piecemeal land controls as a problem of local legitimacy. California Law Review, 71(3), 837–912.CrossRef
Rothwell, J., & Massey, D. (2009). The effect of density zoning on racial segregation in us urban areas. Urban Affairs Review, 44(6), 779–806.CrossRef
Saxer, S. R. (2016). To bargain or not to bargain? A response to bargaining for development post-Koontz. Florida Law Review Forum, 67, 5–8.
Selmi, D. P. (2015). Negotiations in the aftermath of Koontz. Maryland Law Review, 75, 743–757.
Serkin, C. (2016). The winners and losers in negotiating exactions: A response to Sean Nolon. Florida Law Review Forum, 67, 9–12.
Serkin, C., Ellickson, R., Been, V., & Hills, R. M. (2013). Land use controls: Cases and materials. New York: Wolters Kluwer.
Shoked, N. (2011). Reinvention of ownership: The embrace of residential zoning and the modern populist reading of property. Yale Journal on Regulation, 28, 91–150.
Somin, I. (2015). The grasping hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the limits of eminent domain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
Starritt, S. D., & McClanahan, J. H. (1995). Land-use planning and takings: The viability of conditional exactions to conserve open space in the Rocky Mountain West after Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994). Land & Water Law Review, 30, 415–464.
Toll, S. I. (1969). Zoned American (1st ed.). New York: Grossman Publishers.
Valiante, M. (2016). In search of the ‘public interest’ in Ontario planning decisions. In Public interest, private property: Land and planning policy in Canada (pp. 104–134). Vancouver; Toronto: UBC Press.
Valiante, M., & Smit, A. (2016). Introduction. In M. Valiante & A. Smit (Eds.), Public interest, private property: Land and planning policy in Canada (pp. 1–33). Vancouver-Toronto: UBC Press.
Versteeg, M. (2015). The politics of takings clauses. Northwestern University Law Review, 109, 695–738.
Wetlaufer, G. B. (1990). Rhetoric and its denial in legal discourse. Virginia Law Review, 76, 1545–1597.CrossRef
Wheaton, W. C. (1993). Land capitalization, Tiebout mobility, and the role of zoning regulations. Journal of Urban Economics, 34(2), 102–117.CrossRef
Wolf, M. A. (2008). The zoning of America: Euclid V. Ambler. University Press of Kensas.
Metadaten
Titel
Revitalizing Land Use Law: The Burdens-Benefits Ratio Principle
verfasst von
Ronit Levine-Schnur
Copyright-Jahr
2018
Buch
One Hundred Years of Zoning and the Future of Cities

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66868-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-66869-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2018

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66869-7_10

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise