Talking about property rights over tea: Discourse and policy in the US and Europe

Planning By Law and Property Rights Reconsidered

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 71-95

  Jacobs, Harvey M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884147734     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (87)

1. Adams, J. 1851 (1790). Discourses on Davilia, A series of papers on political history, in The Works of John Adams, vol. 6, edited by C.F. Adams. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
2. Alexander, G.S. 2006. The Global Debate over Constitutional Property: Lessons for American Takings Jurisprudence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Allen, T. 2005. Property and the Human Rights Act 1998. Oxford: Hart.
4. Allen, T. 2007. Compensation for property under the European Convention on Human Rights. Michigan Journal of International Law, 28(2), 287-335.
5. Allen, T. 2010. Liberalism, social democracy and the value of property under the European Convention on Human Rights. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 59(4), 1055-1078.
6. Alterman, R. 1997. The challenge of farmland preservation: Lessons from a sixnation comparison. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(2), 220-243.
7. Andrew, J.A. 1997. The Other Side of the Sixties: Young Americans for Freedom and the Rise of Conservative Politics. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
8. Askheim, L.O. and Rødsæther, C. 1998. Norway, in A. Hurndall (ed.) Property in Europe: Law and Practice. London: Butterworths, 421-453.
9. Booth, P. 2003. Promoting radical change: The Loi Relative à la Solidarité et au Renouvellement Urbains in France. European Planning Studies, 11(8), 949-963.
10. Booth, P.A. 2005. The nature of difference: Traditions of law and government and their effects on planning in Britain and France, in B. Sanyal (ed.), Comparative Planning Cultures. New York: Routledge, 259-283.
11. Bosselman F.P. and Callies, D. 1971. The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
12. Bosselman, F., Callies, D. and Banta, J. 1973. The Taking Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
13. Brands, H.W. 2000. The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin. New York: Anchor Books.
14. Brooks, D. 2001. One nation, slightly divisible, The Atlantic Monthly, 288(5), 53-65.
15. Carss-Frisk, M. 2001. The Right to Property: A Guide to the Implementation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Handbooks, no. 4. Strasbourg, Belgium: Directorate General on Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Council of Europe.
16. Çoban, A.R. 2004. Protection of Property Rights within the European Convention of Human Rights. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
17. Daniels, T. and Bowers, D. 1997. Holding our Ground: Protecting America's Farms and Farmland. Covelo, CA: Island Press.
18. De Soto, H. 2000. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. New York: Basic Books.
19. Dubois, M.P. 1998. France, in A. Hurndall (ed.), Property in Europe: Law and Practice. London: Butterworths, 179.
20. The Economist. 2011a (17 March). The Far right in northern Europe: on the march. Populist anti-immigration parties are performing strongly across Northern Europe. [Online]. Available at: www.economist.com [accessed 13 April 2011].
21. The Economist. 2011b (17 March). What can France's political establishment do about the rise of Marine Le Pen? [Online]. Available at: www.economist.com [accessed 13 April 2011].
22. Ely, J.W. Jr. 1992. The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Ely, J.W. Jr. 2009. Post-Kelo reform: Is the glass half full or half empty? Supreme Court Economic Review, 17(1), 127-150.
24. 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(5), 411-422.
25. Fabri, H.R. 2002. The approach taken by the European Court of Human Rights to the assessment of compensation for 'regulatory expropriations' of the property of foreign investors. New York University Environmental Law Journal, 11(1), 148-173.
26. Franklin, B. 1907 (1789). Queries and remarks respecting alterations in the constitution of Pennsylvania, in Albert H. Smith (ed.), The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 10. London: Macmillan and Co.
27. Fukuyama, F. 1989. The end of history? The National Interest, 16, 3-18.
28. Gates, P.W. 1968. History of Public Land Law Development (written for the Public Land Law Review Commission). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
29. Gottlieb, A.M. (ed.) 1989. The Wise Use Agenda. Bellevue, WA: The Free Enterprise Press.
30. Grgić, A. et al. 2007. The Right to Property under The European Convention On Human Rights. Human rights handbooks, no. 10. Strasbourg, Belgium: Directorate General on Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Council of Europe.
31. Hamilton, A., Madison, J., and Jay, J. 1961. The Federalist Papers. New York: Mentor Books. (Original work published 1788).
32. Herriot, E. 1930. The United States of Europe, translated by Reginald J. Dingle. New York: The Viking Press.
33. Huntington, S.P. 1997. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Touchstone.
34. Höbelt, L. 2003. Defiant Populist: Jörg Haider and the Politics of Austria. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
35. Ignazi, P. 2003. Extreme Right Parties in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Jackson, K.A. 2011. 2011 Report-International Property Rights Index. Washington, DC: Property Rights Alliance. [Online]. Available at: www.internationalpropertyrightsindex.org [accessed 22 September 2011].
37. Jacobs, H.M. 1995. The anti-environmental, 'wise use' movement in America. Land Use Law and Zoning Digest, 47(2), 3-8.
38. Jacobs, H.M. 1998a. The impact of state property rights laws: Those laws and my land. Land Use Law and Zoning Digest, 50(3), 3-8.
39. Jacobs, H.M. 1998b. The 'wisdom', but uncertain future, of the wise use movement, in H.M. Jacobs (ed.), Who Owns America? Social Conflict over Property Rights. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 29-44.
40. Jacobs, H.M. 1999. State Property Rights Laws: The Impacts of Those Laws on My Land, Policy Focus Report. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.
41. Jacobs, H.M. 2003. The politics of property rights at the national level: Signals and trends. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(2), 181-189.
42. Jacobs, H.M. 2006. The Taking of Europe: Globalizing the American Ideal of Private Property? Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
43. Jacobs, H.M. 2008a. L'engrenage de la croissance urbaine: La place de la propriété dans la planification urbaine. Etudes Foncières, 132, 12-16.
44. Jacobs, H.M. 2008b. The future of the regulatory taking issue in the U.S. and Europe: Divergence or convergence? Urban Lawyer, 40(1), 51-72.
45. Jacobs, H.M. 2009. An alternative perspective on U.S. - European property rights and land use planning: Differences without any substance. Planning and Environmental Law, 61(3), 3-12.
46. Jacobs, H.M. 2010. Social conflict over property rights: The end, a new beginning or a continuing conversation? Housing Policy Debate, 20(3), 329-349.
47. Jacobs, H.M. and Bassett, E.M. 2010. After Kelo: Political rhetoric and policy responses. Land Lines, 22(2), 14-20.
48. Jacobs, H.M. and Bassett, E.M. 2011. All sound, no fury? The impacts of statebased Kelo laws. Planning and Environmental Law, 63(2), 3-8.
49. Kayden, J.S. 2002. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: About more than moratoria. Land Use Law and Zoning Digest, 54(10), 3-5.
50. Kayden, J.S. 2004. Charting the constitutional course of private property: Learning from the 20th century, in H.M. Jacobs (ed.), Private Property in the 21st Century. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 31-49.
51. López, E.J., Jewell, R.T. and Campbell, N.D. 2009. Pass a law, any law, fast! State legislative responses to the Kelo backlash. Review of Law and Economics, 5(1), 101-135.
52. Marzulla, N.G. 1996. Property rights movement: How it began and where it is headed, in P.D. Brick and R. McGreggor Cawley (eds), A Wolf in the Garden: The Land Rights Movement and the New Environmental Debate. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 39-58.
53. Mayer, N. 2003. Le Pen's comeback: The 2002 French presidential election. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27 (2), 455-459.
54. Mead, W.R. 2011. The tea party and American foreign policy. Foreign Affairs, 90(2), 28-44
55. Miniter, R. 1994. You just can't take it anymore: America's property rights revolt. Policy Review, 70, 40-46.
56. Montopoli, B. 2010. Tea party supporters: Who they are and what they believe. [Online]. Available at: www.cbsnews.com [accessed 9 April 2011].
57. Morris, A.P. 2009. Symbol or substance? An empirical assessment of state responses to Kelo. Supreme Court Economic Review, 17, 237-278.
58. Moss, E. ed. 1977. Land Use Controls in the United States: A Handbook on the Legal Rights of Citizens by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. New York: The Dial Press/James Wade.
59. Nadler, J., Diamond, S.S. and Patton, M.M. 2008. Government takings of private property: Kelo and the perfect storm, in N. Persily, J. Citrin, and P. Egan (eds), Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy. Oxford University Press, 287-310.
60. Newman, P. and Thornley, A. 1996. Urban Planning in Europe: International Competition, National Systems, and Planning Projects. London: Routledge.
61. Ploeger, H.D. and Groetelaers, D.A. 2007. The importance of the fundamental right to property for the practice of planning: An introduction to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 1, Protocol 1. European Planning Studies, 15(10), 1423-1438.
62. Reid, T.R. 2004. The United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy. New York: Penguin
63. Revell, K.D. 1999. The road to Euclid v. Ambler: City planning, state-building, and the changing scope of the police power. Studies in American Political Development, 13(1), 50-145.
64. Roddewig, R.J. and Duerksen, C.J. 1989. Responding to the Takings Challenge: A Guide for Officials and Planners. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 416. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
65. Sagalyn, L.B. 2008. Positioning politics: Kelo, eminent domain, and the press, in Richard Francis Keevey and Timothy N Castano (eds), Land and Power: The Impact of Eminent Domain in Urban Communities. Princeton, NJ: Policy Research Institute for the Region, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, 49-74.
66. Salkin, P.E. 2001. Trends in Land Use Law from A to Z: Adult Uses to Zoning. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
67. Schain, M. et al. 2002. Shadows over Europe: The Development and Impact of the Extreme Right in Western Europe. New York: Palgrave.
68. Schlatter, R. 1951. Private Property: The History of an Idea. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
69. Schwelb, E. 1964. The protection of the right to property of nationals under the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. American Journal of Comparative Law, 13(4), 518-541.
70. Shorto, R. 2011. Marine Le Pen, France's (kinder, gentler) extremist, The New York Times Magazine (01 May). [Online]. Available at: www.nytimes.com [accessed 1 May 2011].
71. Somin, I. 2009. The limits of backlash: Assessing the political response to Kelo. Minnesota Law Review, 93(6), 2100-2178.
72. Teles, S.M. 2008. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
73. Turner, F.J. 1893. The significance of the frontier in American history, Report of the American Historical Association. 199-227.
74. Wikipedia 2011a. Swedish General Election, 2010. [Online]. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_general_election,_2010 [accessed 13 April 2011].
75. Wikipedia. 2011b. Tea Party Movement. [Online]. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement [accessed 9 April 2011].
76. Wolf, M.A. 2008. The Zoning of America: Euclid v. Ambler. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
77. Woods, D. 2009. Pockets of resistance to globalization: The case of the Lega Nord. Patterns of Prejudice, 43(2), 161-177.
78. Bourdat, E. 2006 (01 February). Chargée de Mission, Mission Interministérielle d'Aménagement du Littoral, Préfecture de région du Languedoc-Roussillon.
79. Gambier, J.-P. 2006 (31 January). Chef du Service Foncier, Montpellier Agglomération.
80. Girault, I. 2006 (03 February). Directeur, Agence d'Urbanisme et de Développement de la Région Nîmoise.
81. Aasen, I. 2006 (30 May). Senior Adviser in the Department of Forest and Natural Resource Policy, Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Landbruks- og matdepartementet).
82. Falleth, E. 2006 (30 May). Member of the Environmental Planning Research Group of the Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR).
83. Hjelle, A.M.A. 2006 (31 May). Assistant General Secretary of the Norwegian Mountain Touring Organisation (Den Norske Turistforeningen).
84. Jensen, Dr. R.H. 2006 (01 June). Private planning consultant and former academician.
85. Rasmussen, K.F. 2006 (01 June). Senior Adviser in the Housing and Building Department, Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development (Kommunal- og regionaldepartementet).
86. Sevetdal, H. 2006 (02 June). Professor in the Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning (ILP), Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB).
87. Tesli, A. 2006 (30 May). Research Director of the Environment and Development Group of the Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR).