Property rights, taxpayer rights, and the multiscalar attack on the state: Consequences for regionalism in the United States

Regional Studies

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 153-165

  Niedt, Christopher ^a   Weir, Margaret ^b  

^a HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Kelo case; Property rights; Regionalism; Regulatory takings; Social movements; Tax limitations

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC POLICY; PROPERTY RIGHTS; REGIONAL POLICY; REGIONALISM; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; SOCIAL MOVEMENT; TAX SYSTEM;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 77951134051     PISSN: 00343404     EISSN: 13600591     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00343400802508851     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. ABBOTT C., ADLER S. and HOWE D. (2003) A quiet counterrevolution in land use regulation: the origins and impact of Oregon's Measure 7, Housing Policy Debate 14, 383-425.
2. BALLOT INITIATIVE STRATEGY CENTER (2006) The 2006 Initiative and Referenda Election Results (available at: http://www.ballot.org) (accessed on 10 December 2006).
3. BARRON D. (2006) Eminent domain is dead; long live eminent domain, The Boston Globe 16 April.
4. BRADLEY J. (2006) Property wrongs: in Kelo's wake, a raft of anti-regulatory initiatives from the right, The American Prospect January, 16-18.
5. BRENNER N. (2001) The limits to scale?: methodological reflections on scalar structuration, Progress in Human Geography 25, 591-614.
6. BURTKA A. T. (2006) Ohio high court reins in eminent domain, Trial October, 74-78.
7. CASTLE COALITION (2007) 50 State Report Card: Tracking Eminent Domain Reform Legislation since, Kelo. June (available at: http:// www.castlecoalition.org) (accessed on 1 July 2007).
8. CLEMENS E. S. (1993) Organizational repertoires and institutional change: women's groups and the transformation of U.S. politics, 1890-1920, American Journal of Sociology 98, 755-798.
9. DAVIS S. K. (1997) Fighting over public lands: interest groups, states, and the federal government, in DAVIS C. (Ed.) Western Public Lands and Environmental Politics, pp. 11-31. Westview, Boulder, CO.
10. DEMOCRACY REFORM OREGON (2007) Money in Politics Research Action Project. Press Release, 19 April (available at: http://www. oregonfollowthemoney.com) (accessed on 15 May 2007).
11. DREIER P., MOLLENKOPF J. and SWANSTROM T. (2001) Place Matters: Metro Politics for the 21st Century. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
12. ECHEVERRIA J. (2006) All Over the Map: The Diversity of 2006 State Ballot Measures Addressing Eminent Domain for Economic Development. Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, Washington, DC (available at: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/gelpi/current_research/eminent_domain/eminent_pub.cfm) (accessed on 10 June 2007).
13. ECKHOFF A. S. and MERRIAM D. H. (2006) Public use goes peripatetic: first, Michigan reverses Poletown and now the Supreme Court grants review in an eminent domain case, in MERRIAM D. H. and ROSS M. M. (Eds) Eminent Domain Use and Abuse: Kelo in Context, pp. 31-47. American Bar Association, Chicago, IL.
14. EMERSON K. and WISE C. R. (1997) Statutory approaches to regulatory takings: State property rights legislation issues and implications for public administration, Public Administration Review 57, 411-422.
15. FELDMAN T. D. and JONAS A. E. G. (2000) Sage scrub revolution?: property rights, political fragmentation, and conservation planning in Southern California under the federal Endangered Species Act, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90,256-292.
16. FLINT A. (2006) This Land: The Battle over Sprawl and the Future of America. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
17. FRIEDEN B. and SAGALYN L. (1989) Downtown, Inc.: How America Rebuilds Cities. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
18. GANZ M. (2000) Resources and resourcefulness: strategic capacity in the unionization of California agriculture, 1959-1966, American Journal of Sociology 105, 1003-1062.
19. GARNETT N. S. (2006) Planning as public use. Paper presented at the Litigating Regulatory Takings Claims Conference, Berkeley, CA, USA, 26 October 2006.
20. GILROY L. (2006) Statewide Regulatory Takings Reform: Exporting Oregon's Measure 37 to Other States. April. Reason Foundation, Los Angeles, CA.
21. HARVEY D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism, Geografiska Annaler B 71, 3-17.
22. HEROD A. (2001) Labor Geographies: Workers and the Landscapes of Capitalism. Guilford, New York, NY.
23. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE (2005) U.S. House of Representatives Passed Meaningful Eminent Domain Reform, Legislation Now Heads to Senate. Press Release, 3 November. Institute for Justice, Washington, DC (available at: http://www.ij.org/private_property/ castle/11_03_05pr.html) (accessed on 30 September 2006).
24. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE (2006) Legislative Action Since Kelo. 12 September. Institute for Justice, Washington, DC (available at: http://www.castlecoalition.org/publications/index.html) (accessed on 19 October 2006).
25. JACOBS H. M. (1998) Who Owns America?: Social Conflict Over Property Rights. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
26. JACOBS H. M. (2003) The politics of property rights at the national level: signals and trends, Journal of the American Planning Associ- ation 69, 181-189.
27. KECK M. E. and SIKKINK K. (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
28. KURTZ H. (2002) The politics of environmental justice as the politics of scale: St. James Parish, Louisiana, and the Shintech Siting Controversy, in HEROD A. and WRIGHT M. (Eds) Geographies of Power: Placing Scale, pp. 249-273. Blackwell, Malden, MA.
29. LEITNER H. (2002) Networks, governance and the politics of scale: inter-urban networks and the European Union, in HEROD A. and WRIGHT W. (Eds) Geographies of Power: Placing Scale, pp. 274-303. Blackwell, Malden, MA.
30. LEITNER H. and MILLER B. (2007) Scale and the limits of ontological debate: a commentary on Marston, Jones, and Woodward, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 32, 116-125.
31. LIEB J. (2004) Voters climb aboard FasTracks tax boost: six new metro area rail lines, The Denver Post 3 November.
32. LUND H. L. (1995) The property rights movement and state legislation, in YANDLE B. (Ed.) Land Rights: The 1990s' Property Rights Rebellion, pp. 199-229. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
33. MARSTON S. (2000) The social construction of scale, Progress in Human Geography 24, 219-242.
34. MARZULLA N. G. (1995) The property rights movement: how it began and where it is headed, in YANDLE B. (Ed.) Land Rights: The 1990s' Property Rights Rebellion, pp. 1-30. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
35. MARZULLA N. G. (2005) Picking Up the Pieces in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court's 2005 Property Rights' Trilogy. AEI National Legal Center for the Public Interest, Washington, DC.
36. MCADAM D., MCCARTHY J. D. and ZALD M. N. (Eds) (1996) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
37. MCCARTHY J. (1999) The political and moral economies of Wise Use. PhD thesis. University of California, Berkeley, CA.
38. MCCARTHY J. (2001) States of nature and environmental enclosures in the American West, in WATTS M. and PELUSO N. (Eds) Violent Environments, pp. 117-146. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
39. MCFEATTERS A. (2002) National group hopes to limit use of eminent domain powers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 5 March.
40. MEYER D. S. and STAGGENBORG S. (1996) Movements, counter movements, and the structure of political opportunity, American Journal of Sociology 101, 1628-1660.
41. MILLER B. (1994) Political empowerment, local-central state relations, and geographically shifting opportunity structures: strategies of the Cambridge, Massachusetts Peace Movement, Political Geography 13, 393-406.
42. OLBERDING J. C. (2002) Diving into the 'third waves' of regional governance and economic development strategies: a study of regional partnerships for economic development in U.S. metropolitan areas, Economic Development Quarterly 16, 251-272.
43. OLIVETTI A. and WORSHAM J. (2003) This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land: The Property Rights Movement and Regulatory Takings. LFB Scholarly Publ., New York, NY.
44. ORFIELD M. (1997) Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, and The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
45. PASTOR M., BENNER C. and MATSUOKA M. (2009) This Could be the Start of Something Big: Regional Equity Organizing and the Future of Metropolitan America. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
46. PENDALL R., WOLANSKI R. M. and MCGOVERN D. (2002) Property rights in state legislatures: rural-urban differences in support for state anti-takings bills, Journal of Rural Studies 18, 19-33.
47. PRISTIN T. (2006) Voters back limits on eminent domain, New York Times 15 November.
48. RAMOS T. (1995) Wise Use in the West: the case of the northwest timber industry, in ECHEVERRIA J. D. and EBY R. B. (Eds) Let the People Judge: Wise Use and the Private Property Rights Movement. Island Press, Washington, DC.
49. RAMPTON S. (2004) Fish out of water: behind the Wise Use movement's victory in Klamath. Center for Media and Democracy, Madison, WI (available at: http://www.prwatch.org) (accessed on 12 October 2006).
50. RICHEY W. (2005) Fracas over home seizures moves to states, Christian Science Monitor 15 December.
51. RUSK D. (2001) Inside Game Outside Game: Winning Strategies for Saving Urban America. The Century Foundation, New York, NY.
52. SABATH M. (2004) The perils of the property rights initiative: taking stock of Nevada County's Measure D, Harvard Environmental Law Review 28, 249-280.
53. SALKIN P. E., LUCERO L. A. and PHILLIPS A. (2006) The friends of the court: the role of Amicus Curiae in Kelo v. City of New London, in MERRIAM D. H. and ROSS M. M. (Eds) Eminent Domain Use and Abuse: Kelo in Context, pp. 165-194. American Bar Association, Chicago, IL.
54. SHANLEY W. (2006) Colorado coalition pans TABOR: push letter warns other states to fight initiatives, The Denver Post 3 August.
55. SHEPPARD E. (2002) The places and times of globalization: place, scale, networks, and positionality, Economic Geography 78, 307-330.
56. SKOCPOL T. (1992) Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Belknap, Cambridge, MA.
57. SMITH N. (1992) Contours of a spatialized politics: homeless vehicles and the production of geographical scale, Social Text 33, 55-83.
58. STAEHELI L. (1994) Empowering political struggle: spaces and scales of resistance, Political Geography 13, 387-391.
59. STANKIEWICZ G. M. (2005) The rights of taxpayers and the rights of all citizens: the political economy and impact of the state-level tax and expenditure limitations of the 1990s, Unpublished PhD thesis. Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
60. SWITZER J. V. (1997) Green Backlash: The History and Politics of Environmental Opposition in the U.S.. Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO.
61. THOMPSON F. and GREEN M. (2004) Vox populi?: Oregon tax and expenditure limitation initiatives, Public Budgeting and Finance 24, 73-87.
62. WEIR M. (2000) Coalition building for regionalism, in KATZ B. (Ed.) Reflections on Regionalism, pp. 127-153. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
63. WHITMAN R. M. (2006) 2004 Oregon Ballot Measure 37. Paper presented at the Litigating Regulatory Takings Claims Conference, Berkeley, CA, USA, 27 October 2006.
64. WILAYTO P. (2000) RightWatch. Briefing Paper, 8 February. Institute for Justice, Washington, DC (available at: http:// my.execpc.com/ ajrc/ifj.html) (accessed on 16 September 2006).