The Kelo Opportunity: A Loss for the Court, but a Gain for Public Administrators

Public Integrity

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 41-58

  Olejarski, Amanda M ^a  

^a SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925960466     PISSN: 10999922     EISSN: 15580989     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2753/PIN1099-9922130103     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Bauer, Christopher A. 2003. "Government takings and constitutional guarantees: When date of valuation statutes deny." Brigham Young University Law Review 1:265-309
2. Behn, Robert D. 1998. "What right do public managers have to lead?" Public Administration Review 58:209-224
3. Benedict, Jeff. 2009. Little pink house: A true story of defiance and courage. New York: Grand Central Publishing
4. Berman et al., Executors v. Parker et al., 348 U.S. 26 (1954)
5. Bixby, Michael B. 1987. "The ‘public use’ requirement after Midkiff." American Business Law Journal 24:621-641
6. Boudreaux, Paul. 2005. "Eminent domain, property rights, and the solution of representative reinforcement." Denver University Law Review 83:1-55
7. Cohen, Charles. E. 2006. "Eminent domain after Kelo v. City of New London: An argument for banning economic development takings." Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 29:491-568
8. Cook, Brian. J. 1992. "Subordination or independence for administrators? The decision of 1789 reexamined." Public Administration Review 52:497-503
9. Coyne, Thomas. J. 1985. "Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff: A final requiem for the public use limitation on eminent domain?" Notre Dame Law Review 60:388-404
10. Cypher, Matthew L., and Fred A. Forgey. 2003. "Eminent domain: An evaluation based on criteria relating to equity, effectiveness, and efficiency." Urban Affairs Review 39:254-268
11. Dorf, Michael C. 2005. "Justice Stevens adds fuel to the fire over the New London eminent domain case." Available at http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dorf/20050829.html
12. Epstein, Richard A. 1982. "Not deference but doctrine: The eminent domain clause." Supreme Court Review, 1982:351-380
13. Farjad, Nasim. 2007. "Condemnation friendly or land use wise? A broad interpretation of the public use requirement works well for New York City." Fordham Law Review 76:1121-1191
14. Fawcett, David B., III. 1986. "Eminent domain, the police power, and the Fifth Amendment: Defining the domain of the takings analysis." University of Pittsburgh Law Review 47:491-515
15. Foster, Gregory D. 1981. "Law, morality, and the public servant." Public Administration Review 41:29-34
16. Goodin, Amanda W. 2007. "Rejecting the return to blight in post-Kelo state legislation." New York University Law Review 82:178-208
17. Goodsell, Charles. T. 2004. The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic, 4th ed. Washington, D. C.: CQ Press
18. Han, Andrew S. 2008. "From New London to Norwood: A year in the life of eminent domain." Duke Law Journal 57:1449-1483
19. Haque, M. Shamsul. 2001. "The diminishing publicness of public service under the current mode of governance." Public Administration Review 61:65-82
20. Harrington, Matthew P. 2002. "‘Public use’ and the original understanding of the so-called ‘Takings’ Clause." Hastings Law Journal 53:1245
21. Hawaii Housing Authority et al. v. Midkiff et al., 467 U.S. 229 (1984)
22. Hegyi, Louis L. 1979. "Eminent domain in Indiana: 1816-1865." Indiana Law Journal 54:427-442
23. Kennedy, Sheila S., and Mark S. Rosentraub. 2000. "Public-private partnerships, professional sports teams, and the protection of the public's interest." American Review of Public Administration 30:436-459
24. Knapp, Gregory S. 2008. "Maintaining government accountability: Calls for a ‘public use beyond eminent domain’." Indiana Law Journal 83:1097-1119
25. Krislov, Samuel. 1974. Representative bureaucracy. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall
26. López, Edward J., and Sasha M. Totah. 2007. "Kelo and its discontents: The worst (or best) thing to happen to property rights." Independent Review 11:397-416
27. Main, Carla T. 2005. "How eminent domain ran amok." Policy Review 133:3-24
28. Melton, Buckner F., Jr. 1996. "Eminent domain, ‘public use,’ and the conundrum of original intent." Natural Resources Journal 36:59-85
29. Moe, Ronald C. 2001. "The emerging federal quasi government: Issues of management and accountability." Public Administration Review 61:290-312
30. Municipal Development Projects Act, 2 Conn. Gen. Stat. §8-186 et seq. (2007)
31. Mushkatel, Alvin, and Khalil Nahkleh. 1978. "Eminent domain: Land-use planning and the powerless in the United States and Israel." Social Problems 26:147-159
32. Odabashian, Kraig. 2002. "Investment-backed expectations and the politics of judicial articulation: The reintegration of history and the Lockean mind in contemporary American jurisprudence." UCLA Law Review 50:641-684
33. Olejarski, Amanda M. 2008a. "E[I]m[M]inent domain: An assumption of academic duty." Paper presented at meeting of Public Administration Theory Network, Richmond, Va
34. Olejarski, Amanda M. 2011 forthcoming. "Public good as public interest?" Paper presented at meeting of Southeastern Conference on Public Administration, Orlando, Fla
35. The FederalistPublius. 1788/1961., edited by J. E. Cooke. Cleveland: Meridian Books
36. Rohr, John A. 1989. Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law and values, 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker
37. Rohr, John A. 1993. "Toward a more perfect union." Public Administration Review 53:246-249
38. Rohr, John A. 1998. Public service, ethics, and constitutional practice. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas
39. Salkin, Patricia E., and Lora A. Lucero. 2005. "Community redevelopment, public use, and eminent domain." Urban Lawyer 37:201-242
40. Scheiber, Harry N. 1975. "Federalism and the American economic order, 1789-1910." Law & Society Review 10:57-118
41. Scott, Kyle. 2010. The price of politics: Lessons from "Kelo v. City of New London, Conn." New York: Rowman & Littlefield
42. Simon, Herbert A. 1997. Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations, 4th ed. New York: Free Press
43. Spicer, Michael W., and Larry D. Terry. 1993. "Legitimacy, history, and logic: Public administration and the Constitution." Public Administration Review 53:239-246
44. Staley, Samuel R., and John P. Blair. 2005. "Eminent domain, private property, and redevelopment: An economic development analysis." Available at http://www.reason.org/ps331.pdf
45. Stoebuck, William B. 1972. "A general theory of eminent domain." Washington Law Review 47:553-608
46. Refounding democratic public administration: Modern paradoxes, postmodern challengesWamsley, Gary L. 1996. "A public philosophy and ontological disclosure as the basis for normatively grounded theorizing in public administration." In, edited by Gary L. Wamsley and James F. Wolf, pp. 351-401. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage
47. Wamsley, G. L., C. T. Goodsell, J. A. Rohr, C. M. Stivers, O. F. White, and J. F. Wolf. 1990. "Public Administration and the Governance Process: Shifting the Political Dialogue. In Refounding Public Administration by G. L. Wamsley, R. N. Bacher, C. T. Goodsell, P. S. Kronenberg, J. A. Rohr, C. M. Stivers, O. F. White, & J. F. Wolf, pp. 31-51. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
48. Wilcox, John. 1967. "Eminent domain." American Business Law Journal 5:143-154
49. Wilder, Margaret G., and Joyce E. Stigter. 1989. "Rethinking the role of judicial scrutiny in eminent domain." Journal of the American Planning Association 55:57-65
50. Wilson, Woodrow. 1887. "The study of administration." Political Science Quarterly 2:197-222