The holdout problem, urban sprawl, and eminent domain

Journal of Housing Economics

Volumn 16, Issue 3-4, 2007, Pages 309-319

  Miceli, Thomas J ^a   Sirmans, C F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^b School of Business   (United States)

Author keywords

Eminent domain; Holdout problem; K11; R14; R52; Urban renewal; Urban sprawl

Indexed keywords

EID: 35448956761     PISSN: 10511377     EISSN: 10960791     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhe.2007.06.004     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Brueckner J. Urban sprawl: diagnosis and remedies. International Regional Science Review 23 (2000) 160-171
2. Brueckner J. Infrastructure financing and urban development: the economics of impact fees. Journal of Public Economics 66 (1997) 383-407
3. Cohen L. Holdouts and free riders. Journal of Legal Studies 20 (1991) 351-362
4. Colwell P., and Munneke H. The structure of urban land prices. Journal of Urban Economics 41 (1997) 321-336
5. Colwell P., and Munneke H. Land prices and land assembly in the CBD. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 18 (1999) 163-180
6. Cooter R. The Strategic Constitution (2000), Princeton University Press, Princeton
7. Dixit A., and Olson M. Does voluntary participation undermine the Coase theorem?. Journal of Public Economics 76 (2000) 309-335
8. Fischel W. Regulatory Takings: Law, Economics, and Politics (1995), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
9. Galster G., Hanson R., Ratcliffe M., Wolman H., Coleman S., and Freihage J. Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate 12 (2001) 681-717
10. Goldberg V. Relational exchange, contract law, and the boomer problem. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 141 (1985) 570-575
11. Heller M. The boundaries of private property. Yale Law Journal 108 (1999) 1163-1223
12. Helsley R., and Strange W. Limited developers. Canadian Journal of Economics 30 (1997) 329-348
13. Henderson J.V. Economic Theory and the Cities. second ed. (1985), Academic Press, San Diego, CA
14. Kelly D. The 'public use' requirement in eminent domain law: a rationale based on secret purchases and private influence. Cornell Law Review 92 (2006) 1-65
15. McFarlane A. Taxes, fees, and urban development. Journal of Urban Economics 46 (1999) 416-436
16. Menezes, F., Pitchford, R. (2001) Chasing Patents. Working Paper, Australian National University.
17. Merrill T. The economics of public use. Cornell Law Review 72 (1986) 61-116
18. Miceli T., and Segerson K. A bargaining model of holdouts and takings. American Law and Economics Review 9 (2007) 160-174
19. Mills E., and Hamilton B. Urban Economics. fifth ed. (1994), Harper Collins, New York
20. Munch P. An economic analysis of eminent domain. Journal of Political Economy 84 (1976) 473-497
21. Nechyba T., and Walsh R. Urban sprawl. Journal of Economic Perspectives 18 (2004) 177-200
22. O'Flaherty B. Land assembly and urban renewal. Regional Science and Urban Economics 24 (1994) 287-300
23. Parisi F. Entropy in property. American Journal of Comparative Law 50 (2002) 595-632
24. Posner R. Economic Analysis of Law. sixth ed. (2003), Aspen Publishers, New York
25. Strange W. Information, holdouts, and land assembly. Journal of Urban Economics 38 (1995) 317-332
26. Thorsnes P., and McMillen D. Land value and parcel size: a semiparametric analysis. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 17 (1998) 233-244
27. Turnbull G. The investment incentive effects of land use regulations. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 31 (2005) 357-395