How property can create, maintain, or destroy community

Theoretical Inquiries in Law

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2008, Pages

  Lehavi, Amnon ^a  

^a INTERDISCIPLINARY CENTER   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149492917     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15653404     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2202/1565-3404.1208     Document Type: Article

References (132)

1. For a definition and analysis of this property regime, see ELINOR OSTROM, UNDERSTANDING INSTITUTIONAL DIVERSITY 219-54 (2005);
2. Carol M. Rose, The Several Futures of Property: Of Cyberspace and Folk Tales, Emission Trades and Ecosystems, 83 MINN. L. REV. 129, 139 (1998).
3. Indian General Allotment Act, ch. 119, 24 Stat. 388 (1887).
4. See Stacy L. Leeds, Borrowing from Blackacre: Expanding Tribal Land Bases Through the Creation of Future Interests and Joint Tenancies, 80 N.D. L. REV. 827,829-38 (2004);
5. Rebecca Tsosie, Land, Culture, and Community: Reflections on Native Sovereignty and Property in America, 34 IND. L. REV. 1291, 1293-1300 (2001).
6. See Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987) (invalidating, as impermissible taking the provision of Section 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983, which prohibited the descent or devise of any interest that represented less than two percent of the total tract in question so that upon the death of the fractional owner the shares would escheat to the tribe).
7. Pub. L. No. 108-374, 118 Stat. 1773 (2004).
8. See Kristina L. McCulley, The American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004: The Death of Fractionation or Individual Native American Property Interests and Tribal Customs, 30 AM. INDIAN L. REV. 401, 412-15 (2006).
9. George Hillery, Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement, 20 RURAL SOC. 111 (1955).
10. COLIN BELL & HOWARD NEWBY, COMMUNITY STUDIES: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIOLOGY OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY 49 (1973).
11. See, e.g., Monica Colombo et al., Sense of Community and Participation in Urban Contexts, 11 J. COMMUNITY & APPLIED SOC. PSYCHOL. 457, 458-59 (2001);
12. Genel. Theodori, Community and Community Development in Resource-Based Areas: Operational Definitions Rooted in an Interactional Practice, 18 Soc. & NAT. RESOURCES 661, 662-63 (2005).
13. Amitai Etzioni, Creating Good Communities and Good Societies, 29 CONTEMP. SOC. 188 (2000);
14. Colombo et al., supra note 9, at 459-62; John L. McKnight, Redefining Community, 23 SOC pol'y 56 (1992).
15. Etzioni, supra note 10, at 189-90.
16. See, e.g., THOMAS BENDER, COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN AMERICA (1978)(distinguishing between groups bound by kinship, ethnicity, religion, etc. and between political or utilitarian-based groupings, and viewing only the first category as constituting "communities").
17. Theodori, supra note 9, at 662-63. For example, Internet communities have boomed in the past few years, with the creation of web-based networks such as Facebook, http//:www.facebook.com (last visited Mar. 1, 2008).
18. See generally AMOS H. HAWLEY, HUMAN ECOLOGY: A THEORETICAL ESSAY 1-9 (1986).
19. One can think of tragic instances such as the violent conflict between African- Americans and Jewish Ultra-Orthodox in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Crown Heights in 1991 and its aftermath. See Ari L. Goldman, The Crown Heights Report: On the Streets; After Report, the Talk of Residents is Tense, N. Y. TIMES, July 22, 1993, atB4.
20. See, e.g., Yuki Kato, Planning and Social Diversity: Residential Segregation in American New Towns, 43 URB. STUD. 2285 (2006);
21. Brian H. King, Developing KeNgwane: Geographies of Segregation and Integration in the New South Africa, 173 GEOGRAPHICAL J. 13 (2006);
22. Sako Musterd, Segregation, Urban Space and the Resurgent City, 43 URB. STUD. 1325 (2006).
23. See, e.g., Adam Weiss, Note, Grutter, Community, and Democracy: The Case for Race-Conscious Remedies in Residential Segregation Suits, 107 COLUM. L. REV. 1195, 1207-19 (2007).
24. FERDINAND TÖENNIES, COMMUNITY AND CIVIL SOCIETY (Jose Harris ed., Jose Harris & Margaret Hollis trans., Cambridge Univ. Press 2001) (1887). It should be noted, however, that Tönnies originally drew this distinction to depict a historical evolution of Western societies, and not to present an alleged conflict between simultaneously-existing models within societies.
25. See, e.g., Glen O. Robinson, Communities, 83 VA. L. REV. 269 (1997).
26. See Larry Alexander, Illberalism All the Way Down: Illiberal Groups and Two Conceptions of Liberalism, 12 J. CONTEMP. LEGAL ISSUES 625, 636 (2002) (arguing that under the concept of liberalism as state neutrality toward individual/group preferences, "we are all members of illiberal groups, and there are no principles for sorting out our differences")
27. A prominent collection of recent theory on rights of minority cultures in liberal democracies is THE RIGHTS OF MINORITY CULTURES (Will Kymlicka ed., 1995). For such a liberal take on the rights of certain minority groups to congregate in distinctive neighborhoods and cities in the Israeli context, see Eyal Benvenisti, "Separate but Equal" in the Allocation of State Lands for Housing, 21 TEL-AVIV U.L. REV. 769, 775-87 (1997) (Hebrew).
28. Charles M. Tiebout, A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures, 64 J. POL. ECON. 416 (1956). For a critical analysis of this theory,
29. see Richard Briffault, Our Localism: Part II-Localism and Legal Theory, 90 COLUM. L. REV. 346, 399-403, 415-35 (1990).
30. See GERALD E. FRUG, CITY MAKING: BUILDING COMMUNITIES WITHOUT BUILDING WALLS 19-25 (1999). But cf. Briffault, supra note 22, at 414-15 (doubting such empirical assumptions).
31. Robert C. Ellickson, New Institutions for Old Neighborhoods, 48 DUKE L.J. 75, 81-82 (1998).
32. JANE JACOBS, THE DEATH AND LIFE OF GREAT AMERICAN CITIES 55-57 (1961).
33. ROBERT D. PUTNAM, BOWLING ALONE: THE COLLAPSE AND REVIVAL OF AMERICAN COMMUNITY 287-349 (2000).
34. See, e.g., Sheryll D. Cashin, Localism, Self-interest, and the Tyranny of the Favored Quarter: Addressing the Barriers to New Regionalism, 88 GEO. L.J. 1985 (2000);
35. Richard T. Ford, The Boundaries of Race: Political Geography in Legal Analysis, 107 HARV. L. REV. 1841 (1994).
36. Robert C. Ellickson, Unpacking the Household: Informal Property Rights Around the Hearth, 116 YALE L.J. 226, 271-76 (2006).
37. See generally Timothy Wright, The Benedictine Life: Decline, Growth, and Innovation, 7 INT'L J. STUDY CHRISTIAN CHURCH 179 (2007).
38. DONALD B. KRAYBILL, THE RIDDLE OF AMISH CULTURE 91-110 (rev. ed. 2001).
39. See, e.g., JEROME R. MINTZ, HASIDIC PEOPLE: A PLACE IN THE NEW WORLD 3-4 (1992).
40. See, e.g., Jeremy Waldron, Redressing Historic Injustice, 52 U. TORONTO L.J. 135 (2002);
41. Kevin Gover, An Indian Trust for the Twenty-First Century, 46 NAT. RESOURCES J. 317 (2006);
42. P.G. MeHugh, Aboriginal Title in New Zealand: A Retrospect and Prospect, 2 N.Z. J. PUB. & INT'L L. 139 (2004);
43. Kent McNeil, The Vulnerability of Indigenous Land Rights in Australia and Canada, 42 OSGOODE HALL. L.J. 271 (2004).
44. See sources cited in supra note 16.
45. See generally HENRY HEAR, THE KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT: A HISTORY (1992-1997).
46. Cooperative Associations Ordinances (Types of Associations), 1995, § 2(5)(a), KT 5722, 246.
47. See YONINA TALMON, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY IN THE KIBBUTZ 207-08 (1972).
48. Id. at 2-3.
49. See Amnon Lehavi, Mixing Property, 38 SETON HALLL. REV. 137, 166-68 (2008).
50. DAVID MILLER, PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL JUSTICE 25-32 (2001).
51. The definition of the Renewing Kibbutz is now included in the Cooperative Associations Ordinances (Types of Associations) § 2(5)(b).
52. See KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT YEARBOOK No. 3, at 45-48 (2006) (Hebrew), available at http://www.kibbutz.org.il/calcala/ shnaton/060628-shnaton-2006.pdf.
53. Cooperative Associations Ordinances (Types of Associations) § 2(5)(b)(l).
54. Cooperative Associations Ordinances (Reciprocal Guarantee in a Renewing Kibbutz), 2005, KT 6445, 190.
55. Cooperative Associations Ordinances (Affiliation of Housing Units in a Renewing Kibbutz), 2005, § 3, KT 6445, 195.
56. Cooperative Associations Ordinances (Affiliation of Productive Assets in a Renewing Kibbutz), 2005, KT 6445, 195.
57. Associations Ordinances (Affiliation of Housing Units in a Renewing Kibbutz) § 9.
58. See AMIRAM GONEN, BETWEEN CITY AND SUBURB 171-91 (1995).
59. HCJ 4906/98 Am Hofshi Ass'n for Freedom of Religion, Conscience, Education, and Culture v. Ministry of Housing [2000] IsrSC 54(2) 503, 508-09.
60. See Anat Georgy, Respect for Rabbis and Preservation of Jewish Law - No Less Important than Quality of Construction, HA'ARETZ, Dec. 5, 2004, Real Estate Supp., at 1 (Hebrew).
61. Cf. Nomi Maya Stolzenberg, The Culture of Property, in ENGAGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES: THE MULTICULTURAL CHALLENGES IN LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES 169, 182-86 (Richard Shweder et al. eds., 2002) (describing such exclusionary practices in the Hasidic Kiryas Joel village in New York, stemming not so much from Rabbinate decree, but rather from a prevailing social norm).
62. Eric Mirowski, Rabbinate Housing Committees Monitor Rent Rates in the Ultra- Orthodox Sector, HA'ARETZ, Oct. 18, 2004, at A7 (Hebrew).
63. See infra Section III.B.
64. See Lehavi, supra note 38, at 160-66.
65. Cashin, supra note 27.
66. Lehavi, supra note 38, at 161.
67. see EDWARD J. BLAKELY & MARY G. SNYDER, FORTRESS AMERICA: GATED COMMUNITIES IN THE UNITED STATES (1997);
68. SETHA LOW, BEHIND THE GATES: LIFE, SECURITY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS IN FORTRESS AMERICA (2003).
69. In a recent survey, 78 percent of CIC residents said that their CIC's rales "protect and enhance" property values. Only one percent said these rules "harm" property values. Zogby International, Homeowners and Community Associations, 2007 National Survey, http://www.caionline.org/ about/survey.cfm (last visited Mar. 1, 2008).
70. See Rowland Atkinson & Sarah Blandy, Introduction: International Perspectives on the New Enclavism and the Rise of Gated Communities, 20 HOUSING STUD. 177, 178-79 (2005).
71. See, e.g., Simon C. y. Chen & Chris J. Webster, Homeowners Associations, Collective Action and the Costs of Private Governance, 20 HOUSING STUD. 205, 214-16 (2005).
72. See, e.g., Evan McKenzie, Constructing the Pomerium in Las Vegas: A Case Study of Emerging Trends in American Gated Communities, 20 HOUSING STUD. 187, 187-92 (2005).
73. Atkinson & Blandy, supra note 57, at 182-84.
74. Amnon Lehavi, Property Rights and Local Public Goods: Toward a Better Future for Urban Communities, 36 URB. LAW. 1 (2004); Lehavi, supra note 38, at 181-95.
75. Lehavi, supra note 61, at 24-48.
76. Interview with Mr. Jason Schwartz, Director, and with Ms. Emily Maxwell, Acting Director, Catalyst Program, Partnerships for Parks, in New York City (Apr. 24, 2007).
77. Id. The difference between the number of groups and that of community-active parks derives from the fact that, in many cases, there are multiple groups working in the same park. For example, there are about thirty groups involved in the Flushing Meadows Park in Queens.
78. Lehavi, supra note 38, at 181-92.
79. For the work of CDCs, see, for example, ALEXANDER VON HOFFMAN, HOUSE BY HOUSE, BLOCK BY BLOCK: THE REBIRTH OF AMERICA'S URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS (2003). For the intriguing example of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) in Boston, which succeeded in fostering a grassroots revival in one of the city's most impoverished areas,
80. see PETER MEDOFF & HOLLY SKLAR, STREETS OF HOPE: THE FALL AND RISE OF AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD (1994).
81. See Lehavi, supra note 61, at 67-73.
82. See Amnon Lehavi, The Property Puzzle, 96 GEO. L.J. 1987, 1993-96 (2008);
83. J.E. PENNER, THE IDEA OF PROPERTY IN LAW 202-03 (1997).
84. See Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E. Smith, Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle, 110 YALE L.J. 1, 12-24 (2001).
85. Lehavi, supra note 38, at 155-60.
86. See sources cited in supra note 32.
87. See DANIEL H. COLE, POLLUTION AND PROPERTY: COMPARING OWNERSHIP INSTITUTIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 45-84 (2002).
88. See A.J. Van der Walt, Transformative Constitutionalism and the Development of South African Property Law (pt. 1), 2005 J. S. AFR. L. 655.
89. Guido Calabresi & A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, 85 HARV. L. REV. 1089 (1972).
90. See, e.g., IAN AYRES, OPTIONAL LAW: THE STRUCTURE OF LEGAL ENTITLEMENTS 1 -38 (2005);
91. Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell, Property Rules Versus Liability Rules: An Economic Analysis, 109 HARV. L. REV. 713, 724-28 (1996);
92. Henry E. Smith, Property and Property Rules, 79 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1719, 1721 n.5 (2004).
93. Robert C. Ellickson, Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants, Nuisance Rules, and Fines as Land Use Controls, 40 U. CHI. L. REV. 681, 720-21 (1973).
94. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS & 941 (1979).
95. See Henry E. Smith, Exclusion and Property Rules in the Law of Nuisance, 90 VA. L. REV. 965, 993-94 (2004).
96. 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006).
97. Id. at 1840.
98. See STEVEN SHAVELL, FOUNDATIONS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW 145-46, 153-57 (2004).
99. THOMAS W. MERRILL & HENRY E. SMITH, PROPERTY: PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES 194-220 (2007).
100. Carol M. Rose, The Comedy of the Commons: Custom, Commerce, and Inherently Public Property, 53 U. CHI. L. REV. 711 (1986).
101. See Amnon Lehavi & Amir n. Licht, Eminent Domain, Inc., 107 COLUM. L. REV. 1704 (2007).
102. See supra notes 2-6 and accompanying text.
103. For some of these issues, see Robinson, supra note 19; Mark D. Rosen, The Radical Possibility of Limited-Based Interpretation of the Constitution, 43 WM. & MARY L. REV. 927 (2002).
104. See, e.g., HCJ 4222/95 Palatin v. Registrar of Cooperative Ass'ns [1998] IsrSC 52(5) 614, 620; CA 8398/00 Katz v. Kibbutz Ein-Tzurim [2002] IsrSC 56(6) 602, 623.
105. Lehavi, supra note 38, at 166-73. One might argue, however, that the validation of the Renewing Kibbutzim structure can be viewed as creating Property Headwind for old-style cooperative Kibbutzim, bringing about the demise of the latter Kibbutzim's values and ideology, to the extent that one can detect an actual "competition" among these two forms of congregation.
106. See supra notes 49-50 and accompanying text.
107. HCJ 8638/03 Amir v. Rabbinate High Court in Jerusalem (Apr. 6, 2006). The Israeli Knesset is currently deliberating over a recent Draft Bill that would formalize the authority of Rabbinical Courts to decide any kind of issue subject to the parties' consent. See Rabbinical Courts (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment - Jurisdiction by Consent) Draft Bill, 5768-2007 (private bill, submitted by M.K. Eli Aflalo on Dec. 3, 2007).
108. See Tuli Fikresh, Standing on Trial, HAZOFE, Jan. 2, 2006 (Hebrew), available at http://www.hazofe.co.il/web/newsnew/ katava6.asp?Modul=24&id=40405&Word=&gilayon=2602&m ador=.
109. Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987).
110. In some states, the creation of CICs is governed by specific legislation on the matter. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROPERTY (SERVITUDES) § 6.3 (2000). Probably most familiar is California's Davis-Stirling Act (codified as CAL. CIV. CODE div. 2, pt. 4, tit. 6 (West 1982 & Supp. 2008)).
111. See supra notes 56-58 and accompanying text.
112. 90 P.3d 1223 (Cal. 2004).
113. Id. at 1228.
114. Id. at 1229.
115. For a more detailed analysis, see Lehavi, supra note 38, at 163-66.
116. See ROBERT C. ELLICKSON & VICKI L. BEEN, LAND USE CONTROLS 593-96 (3d ed. 2005).
117. See, e.g., Shafer v. Bd. of Trustees of Sandy Hook Yacht Club Estates, Inc., 883 P.2d 1387 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
118. ELLICKSON & BEEN, supra note 99, at 596.
119. Staci Semrad, A New Arena in the Fight Over Smoking: The Home, N.Y TIMES, Nov. 5, 2007, at A18.
120. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).
121. 766 A.2d 1186 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001).
122. Id. at 1193-94.
123. Lehavi, supra note 61, at 56-59.
124. See United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land, 441 U.S. 506, 516 (1979);
125. Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1, 5 (1949).
126. Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit, 304 N.W.2d 455 (Mich. 1981). The general principles of Poletown regarding the existence of a valid "public use" for such types of takings were recently overturned in County of Wayne v. Hathcock, 684 N.W.2d 765 (Mich. 2004).
127. See BERNARD J. FRIEDEN & MARSHALL KAPLAN, THE POLITICS OF NEGLECT: URBAN AID FROM MODEL CITIES TO REVENUE SHARING 24-25 (1975);
128. Wendell E. Pritchett, The "Public Menace" of Blight: Urban Renewal and the Private Uses of Eminent Domain, 21 YALEL. & POL'Y REV. 1, 31-47 (2003).
129. Gideon Parchomovsky & Peter Siegelman, Selling Mayberry: Communities and Individuals in Law and Economics, 92 CAL. L. REV. 75 (2004).
130. Id. at 133-42.
131. Lehavi, supra note 38, at 197-99.
132. Lehavi, supra note 61, at 85-97.