Private property, community development, and eminent domain

Private Property, Community Development, and Eminent Domain

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 1-14

  Malloy, Robin Paul ^a,b   Smith, James Charles ^c  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Center on Property Citizenship and Social Entrepreneurism (PCSE)   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900759615     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (23)

1. Story from BBC News: http//news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/6429317. stm (published March 8, 2007 at 07:07:53 GMT). See also Li & Fung Research Centre, The Promulgation of Property Law - A New Era for Private Property 1-8, 38 CHINA DISTRIBUTION & TRADING (MARCH 2007).
2. Li & Fung, supra note 1.
3. Id. See generally CAO PEI, REAL ESTATE LAW IN CHINA (1998); PATRICK RANDOLPH, CHINESE REAL ESTATE LAW (2000).
4. Li & Fung, supra note 1.
5. See generally HERNANDO DE SOTO, THE MYSTERY OF CAPITAL: WHY CAPITALISM TRIUMPHS IN THE WEST AND FAILS EVERYWHERE ELSE (2000).
6. See ROBIN PAUL MALLOY and JAMES CHARLES SMITH, REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS 3RD(2007). See also ROBIN PAUL MALLOY, LAW IN A MARKET CONTEXT: AN INTRODUCTION TOMARKET CONCEPTS IN LEGAL REASONING (2004).
7. See MALLOY, MARKET CONTEXT, supra note 7, at 184-5, 177; ROBIN PAUL MALLOY, LAW AND MARKET ECONOMY: REINTERPRETING THE VALUES OF LAW AND ECONOMICS 91-4, 96, 98-100, 102-4, 108, 118, 121, 155-6 (Cambridge, 2000).
8. See MALLOY, MARKET CONTEXT, supra note 7, at 21, 106.
9. See MALLOY, MARKET CONTEXT, supra note 7, at 82-9. See generally MALLOY, MARKET ECONOMY, supra note 9 (on the idea of relational exchange and meaning
10. TOM ALLEN, THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY IN COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTIONS (2000).
11. See DANIEL R. MANDELKER, LAND USE LAW 5th (2006).
12. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). (See Full Court opinion in Appendix of this book.)
13. See generally MANDELKER, supra note 15.
14. MALLOY, MARKET CONTEXT, supra note 7, at 26-30.
15. See LAURA S. UNDERKUFFLER, THE IDEA OF PROPERTY: ITS MEANING AND POWER (2003); JOSEPH WILLIAM SINGER, INTRODUCTION TO PROPERTY 1-18 (2001); MALLOY, MARKET CONTEXT, supra note 7, at 1-21
16. See ALLEN, PROPERTY, supra note 14; RICHARD A. EPSTEIN, TAKINGS: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN (1995); DAVID A. DANA and THOMAS W. MERRILL, PROPERTY: TAKINGS (2002); MANDELKER, supra note 15, SINGER, supra note 23, at 595-700.
17. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (right to build house notwithstanding beach protection legislation); City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (right to operate group home notwithstanding zoning
18. Michael Heller, The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in Transition from Marx to Markets, 111 HARV. L. REV. 621 (1998).
19. JOHN MOLLENKOPF, THE CONTESTED CITY (1983); Yan Zhang & Ke Fang, Is History Repeating Itself? From Urban Renewal in the United States to Inner-City Redevelopment in China, 23 JOURNAL OF PLANNING EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 286-98 (2004).
20. See Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Railway Co., 135 U.S. 641, 657-8 (1890) (Congress may authorize railroad corporation to condemn land through Indian territory).
21. See Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Co. v. Alabama Interstate Power Co., 240 U.S. 30 (1916) (Holmes, J.) (state may allow private corporation to condemn land for hydroelectric purposes).
22. County of Wayne v. Hathcock, 684 N.W.2d 765 (Mich. 2004)
23. See, e.g., Sonji Jacobs, Legislators Give Property Seizure Laws High Priority, ATLANTA JOURNAL - CONSTITUTION, Aug. 25, 2005, at 1C ("Grandma's house is at risk if she isn't in the best part of town and a corporate entity wants to build a plant there") (quoting Shannon Goessling of the Southeastern Legal Foundation).