PROPERTY A SLIDES2-10-15

Tuesday Feb 10 Music:

Michael Jackson, Thriller (1983)

Jail Day #2: Class Ends @ 9:15

PROPERTY A (2/10)

I.I. Free Speech Rights (Arches) Free Speech Rights (Arches) (continued)(continued)

II. Introduction to Eminent Domain (Yellowstone)

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeWhat Kind of Problems Might You ExpectA.A.Assume Assume JMB JMB or or Pruneyard Pruneyard Applies: What Applies: What Specifically Can/Can’t Mall Owners Do to Specifically Can/Can’t Mall Owners Do to Address ProtestorsAddress ProtestorsB.Use Schmid & JMB to Help Determine if Right to Exclude Should be Limited in Particular Context for Speech Rights or Other Public Policy Considerations

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeA.Assume JMB or Pruneyard Applies: What

Specifically Can/Can’t Mall Owners Do to Address Protestors

1. Review Problems Addressing:

a. Rev Prob 1G: DF This Week

b. Rev Prob 1I : Thursday

c. Part of Rev Prob 1K(Part i): Friday

2. Note Parallel to Allowable Regulations/Restrictions in MW Problems under Shack & FL Statute

ARCHES: DQ1.26

DELICATE ARCHES

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeA.Assume JMB or Pruneyard Applies: What

Specifically Can/Can’t Mall Owners Do to Address Protestors

DQ1.26: Suppose you represent the owners of a relatively DQ1.26: Suppose you represent the owners of a relatively small NJ mall. What would you tell your clients re the small NJ mall. What would you tell your clients re the

following Qs about following Qs about J.M.B.J.M.B.??

• Assume no additional cases or regulations

• Helpful to point to specific evidence from facts, language, logic of case.

• OK to use common sense (e.g., seems pretty unlikely that could limit protestor access to top floor of parking garage).

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to Exclude

DQ1.26(a) (Arches): Does case open up all malls in the

state to protestors or will its application be determined on a

case-by-case basis for each mall? (Evidence from JMB?)

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeDQ1.26(a) (Arches): Will application of JMB be determined on a case-by-case basis? Evidence includes:

•All malls in original case quite large• “Regional” or “Community” Shopping Centers• At least 71 stores & 27 acres (P87-88)• Ruling “limited to leafletting at such centers” (1st

paragraph P86)

•BUTBUT: Likely no need to redo analysis for other large malls.

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeDQ1.26(a) (Arches): Will application of JMB be determined on a case-by-case basis? Evidence includes:

•Schmid analysis consistent with case-by-case• Public invitation could be less broad • Compatibility could be less • Cf. Princeton [or UM] v. small private residential

college (maybe Rev. Prob. 1H)

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeDQ1.26(b): Assuming the case governs, do all

political/protest groups have to be treated alike? Evidence includes:• Common Sense: Can exclude groups if significant

problems during past visits. • Otherwise: Basis in 1st Amdt

• Might suggest treating all groups/messages the same• BUT (P92) refers to anti-war protest as “most substantial”

and “central to the purpose” of 1st Amdt interests; leaves room for argument about other issues

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeDQ1.26(b): Assuming the case governs, do all

political/protest groups have to be treated alike? • Common Sense: Can exclude if significant problems

during past visits. • Basis in 1st Amdt suggests treating all groups/messages

the same

Hard Q not addressed in JMB or Pruneyard: Should you treat differently if targeting particular

stores in mall? (pros & cons)

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeHard Q not addressed in JMB or Pruneyard:

Should you treat differently if targeting particular stores in mall?

See Fashion Valley Mall v. NLRB, 172 P.3d 742 (Cal. 2007)Forbids mall from excluding peaceful protestors because they are requesting that shoppers boycott a particular mall tenant.No specific info on whether mall is allowed to place special restrictions on these protestors re proximity to targeted business

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeDQ1.26(c) (Arches): Under JMB, what kinds of limits or requirements can the mall impose on

protestors? Possible Examples: •Must stay in designated area.

•Limit on # of protestors per group.

• Limits re noise level, politeness, etc.

• Must clean up leaflets left around

•Deposit to cover clean-up or security costs.

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeDQ1.26(c) (Arches): Under JMB, what kinds of limits or requirements can the mall impose on

protestors?

Most important phrase likely is … Malls have “full power to adopt … time, place & manner time, place & manner [restrictions] [restrictions] that will assure … that … leafletting does not interfere with the shopping center’s business while … preserving the effectiveness of plaintiff’s exercise of their constitutional right.” (P91 right before §C)

Time, Place & Manner [“TPM”] Restrictions = Standard 1Time, Place & Manner [“TPM”] Restrictions = Standard 1stst Amendment Category (in contrast to Subject Matter or Amendment Category (in contrast to Subject Matter or

Viewpoint Restrictions)Viewpoint Restrictions)

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicRight to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicJMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to Exclude

DQ1.26(c) (Arches): Under JMB, what kinds of limits or requirements can the mall impose on protestors?

Most important phrase likely is … (P91): Malls have “full power to adopt … time, place & manner [restrictions] that will assure … that …

•leafletting does not interfere with the shopping center’s leafletting does not interfere with the shopping center’s business business while

•preserving the effectiveness of P’s exercise of their preserving the effectiveness of P’s exercise of their constitutional rightconstitutional right.”

Incorporates/balances interests of both sides.Incorporates/balances interests of both sides.

Other Evidence from JMB?

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeDQ1.26(c): Permissible limits or requirements?

Other Evidence from Other Evidence from JMBJMB??•General standards

• P86 “reasonable conditions” • P89 describing Schmid: “reasonable regulations”• P90 quoting Schmid: “suitable restrictions”

•P87: conditions noted that presumably go too far• can’t approach shoppers• insurance coverage FOR $$1m+

•P86: case seems to be limited to passing out leaflets & related activity; suggests, e.g., might be OK to ban harassment or loud noises

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeDQ1.26(c): Permissible limits or requirements? Additional Info from Additional Info from Green Party Green Party (NJ 2000) (Note (NJ 2000) (Note

5@P94-95)5@P94-95)•General standards

• P95: Balance rights of both sides in evaluating regulations• P95: Fairly allocated fee OK if “objectively related” to evidence

of real costs stemming from leafletting [and presumably other speech activity]

•Conditions rejected• insurance coverage for $$1million• “requirement of “hold harmless clause”• Limit on access to a “few days” per year

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to Exclude

Qs on Permissible Requirements or JMB

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeWhat Kind of Problems Might You ExpectA.Assume JMB or Pruneyard Applies: What Specifically Can/Can’t Mall Owners Do to Address Protestors

B.B.Use Use Schmid Schmid & & JMB JMB to Help Determine if Right to to Help Determine if Right to Exclude Should be Limited in Particular Context for Exclude Should be Limited in Particular Context for Speech Rights or Other Public Policy Speech Rights or Other Public Policy ConsiderationsConsiderations

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeUseSchmid & JMB to Help Determine if Right to Exclude Should be Limited in Particular Context for Speech Rights or Other Public Policy Considerations

1. I’m not going to ask you to decide from scratch what scope of state’s 1st Amdt should be.

2. Might ask you to assume Schmid/JMB are good law & apply to different claims of free speech access (e.g., Rev. Prob 1K(Part i)).

3. Might give you more general Q on scope of right to exclude & you could use Schmid/JMB as one way to analyze (e.g., Rev. Prob. 1H).

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeSchmid Test (P90)

•Use to decide when 1st Amdt requires access to private property open (for some purposes) to public

•Can use by analogy for other limits on Right to Exclude

•Once access allowed, test largely unhelpful for deciding what restrictions allowable; Schmid just says they must be “reasonable”

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeSchmid Test (P90)

(1) Normal Use of Private Property

(2) Extent & Nature of [Public] Invitation

(3) “[P]urpose of the expressional activity … in relation to both the public & private use of the property”

Meaning of 1Meaning of 1stst Two Factors Relatively Clear Two Factors Relatively Clear

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeSchmid Test (P90)

(3) “[P]urpose of the expressional activity … in relation to both the public & private use of the property” •(P91) This factor: “examines the compatibility of the free speech sought with the uses of the property.” Means?

• 2014 student argument : compatibility as subjective: seeming to fit (like human relationship) (reasonable interpretation of language)

• BUTBUT Discussion in JMB seems to focus more on whether speech causes objective harm to existing uses.

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicRight to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicJMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to Exclude

DQ 1.27: Apply DQ 1.27: Apply Schmid Schmid & & JMB JMB to Issue in to Issue in ShackShack

•(1) Apply Schmid Test•(2) Apply JMB

• Compare Shack to Facts of JMB• Relevant Language & Policy Concerns from JMB

I’ll Leave for You & DF & Provide Write-Up in Future Info Memo

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the PublicPublic

JMB, Schmid JMB, Schmid & Scope of Right to Exclude& Scope of Right to ExcludeScope of Right to Exclude in New Situations: Possible Scope of Right to Exclude in New Situations: Possible

Relevant Considerations (Could Also Use for Non-1Relevant Considerations (Could Also Use for Non-1stst Amdt Amdt Speech Access)Speech Access)

•Protection of Disadvantaged Groups. E.g., • Anti-Discrimination Law• Shack & MWs

•Relationship to Govt or Law• Implied K from Support of Govt for creation or operation of enterprise• B/c Rt to Excl derives from state common law in 1st instance, arguably can’t be used in

way that violates public policy (Shack)•Economic Concerns

• Monopoly Concern w Innkeeper Rule• Furthering Commerce w Innkeeper Rule• Protecting O’s Economic Interests (Shack & JMB)

LOGISTICSLOGISTICS• Friday: 1st Extended Class (7:55-9:45)Friday: 1st Extended Class (7:55-9:45)

• DF to follow (9:55-10:45)DF to follow (9:55-10:45)

• New on Course Page:New on Course Page:• Assignment SheetAssignment Sheet

• Descriptions of Daily SlidesDescriptions of Daily Slides

• Exam-Related Materials (at Bottom of Page)Exam-Related Materials (at Bottom of Page)• Instructions for Submitting Sample AnswersInstructions for Submitting Sample Answers

• Complete 2014 ExamComplete 2014 Exam

• My Exam-Tips Workshop (Slides & Old Podcast)My Exam-Tips Workshop (Slides & Old Podcast)

PROPERTY A (2/10)

I. Free Speech Rights (Arches) (continued)

II.II. Introduction to Eminent Domain Introduction to Eminent Domain (Yellowstone)(Yellowstone)

Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power Power

& the Public Use Requirement& the Public Use Requirement•Federal Constitutional BackgroundFederal Constitutional Background

• Deference, Rational Basis, Heightened Deference, Rational Basis, Heightened ScrutinyScrutiny

• The Fifth Amdt, Eminent Domain & Public Use

• Limited Federal Review Under Berman & Midkiff

• State Public Use Standards

• Kelo & Beyond

Chapter 2 : Federal Chapter 2 : Federal ConstitutionalConstitutional BackgroundBackground

Federal Courts Determining if State Law Federal Courts Determining if State Law Violates US ConstitutionViolates US Constitution

•Often in Con Law I: “Procedural” Often in Con Law I: “Procedural” • Not Looking at Substance of Law

• Looking at Authority (v. Feds) Over Subject Matter. E.g.,

• Pre-emption by Congress

• Dormant Commerce Clause

Chapter 2 : Federal Chapter 2 : Federal ConstitutionalConstitutional BackgroundBackground

Fed’l Cts Determining if State Law Violates US Fed’l Cts Determining if State Law Violates US ConstitutionConstitution

•Con Law I = Mostly “Procedural” (Compare Subject Con Law I = Mostly “Procedural” (Compare Subject Matter to State v. Fed’l Authority or to Powers of Fed’l Matter to State v. Fed’l Authority or to Powers of Fed’l Branches)Branches)

•CompareCompare: Review of Substance Employed to Check : Review of Substance Employed to Check Validity Under 14th Amdt and Bill of RightsValidity Under 14th Amdt and Bill of Rights

• Most people believe this should not include determining whether the statute is a good idea as a matter of policy.

DQ 2.05: Why shouldn’t a federal court strike down a state statute because it’s unlikely to do a good job

achieving its purpose or because it’s simply stupid?

Chapter 2 : Federal Chapter 2 : Federal ConstitutionalConstitutional BackgroundBackground

Fed’l Cts Determining if State Law Violates US Fed’l Cts Determining if State Law Violates US ConstitutionConstitution

“Why shouldn’t a federal court strike down a state statute because it’s stupid?” Common Answers:•Democratic Theory:

• State Legislature is Elected Body; Fed’l Court is Not• Remedy for Mistakes by Legislature is Elections

•Relative Expertise: • Legislature Can Do Better Fact-Finding Than Court• Local Officials May Have Better Handle on Local Problems

Chapter 2 : Federal Chapter 2 : Federal ConstitutionalConstitutional BackgroundBackground

Upshot = Default Rule is Deference to State Legislation

•Many Bad Laws are Constitutional•State Legislatures Mostly Allowed to do Stupid Things Unless Their Actions Implicate Particular Constitutional Concerns (Tolerant Parent Analogy)

Chapter 2 : Federal Chapter 2 : Federal ConstitutionalConstitutional BackgroundBackground

Tolerant Parent Analogy

•Generally good parents of teenagers allow their kids lots of leeway to do stupid things.

•That is, up to a certain point …

Chapter 2 : Federal Constitutional Chapter 2 : Federal Constitutional BackgroundBackground

Tolerant Parent Analogy

“You Are Not Leaving the House in That!!”

Chapter 2 : Federal Chapter 2 : Federal ConstitutionalConstitutional BackgroundBackground

Default is Deference to State Legislation

•States Mostly Allowed Leeway to do Stupid Things Unless Their Actions Implicate Particular Constitutional Concerns

•Otherwise, Deference Means Federal Court Does Only Minimal Review of State Legislation: “Rational Basis Scrutiny”

Chapter 2 : Federal Chapter 2 : Federal ConstitutionalConstitutional Background: Background:

Rational Basis ReviewRational Basis Review•Legal Test: Is Challenged Law “Rationally Related to a Legitimate State Purpose”?

• Minimal Test for Constitutionality Under Due Process & Equal Protection Clauses

• Applies If No Claim Under Another More Specific Constitutional Provision

• Very Deferential: Gov’t Virtually Always Wins

Chapter 2 : Federal Chapter 2 : Federal ConstitutionalConstitutional Background: Background:

Rational Basis ReviewRational Basis ReviewIs Challenged Law “Rationally Related to a

Legitimate State Purpose”?

•Purpose is Legitimate if arises from State’s “Police Powers”

• Basic Authority of State Gov’ts• Can regulate to protect/further “HSWM”

• Health

• Safety

• Welfare [general well-being including economic success]

• Morals

Chapter 2 : Federal Chapter 2 : Federal ConstitutionalConstitutional Background: Background:

Rational Basis ReviewRational Basis ReviewIs Challenged Law “Rationally Related to a

Legitimate State Purpose”?

Purpose is Legitimate if arises from “Police Powers” = Basic authority to protect/further

Health, Safety, Welfare, Morals• Good lawyer can tie virtually any state law to one of these purposes

• Usually purposes found illegitimate only if openly discriminatory or singling out individuals. (E.g., Persecute Palomo Act)

Chapter 2 : Federal Chapter 2 : Federal ConstitutionalConstitutional Background: Background:

Rational Basis ReviewRational Basis ReviewIs Challenged Law “Rationally Related to a

Legitimate State Purpose”?

•Not asking if “rational” to a psychologist or economist•Term of art = a rational legislator could believe the state law will help further its purpose, at least a little bit•Doesn’t have to be best option or even a particularly good one. (Deference means states can experiment without having to convince federal court of desirability)

Chapter 2 : Federal Chapter 2 : Federal ConstitutionalConstitutional Background: Background:

Rational Basis ReviewRational Basis Review“Rationally Related to a Legitimate State Purpose”:

Application:1. Identify Purpose of Law

2. Determine if Purpose is Legitimate • Arising under Police Power (HSWM)

• Not Just to Harm Particular Individuals or Group

• Determine if Law “Rationally Related” to its Purpose

Will Do Samples Later in DQ2.07-2.08

Chapter 2 : Federal Chapter 2 : Federal ConstitutionalConstitutional Background: Background: Means/End TestingMeans/End Testing

“Means/End” Testing•Common Type of Constitutional Analysis

•Asks if • Means Chosen (Particular State Law) is Sufficiently Well-Designed to Achieve …

• An End (State Interest) that is Sufficiently Important

•Rational Basis Review is One Example

Chapter 2 : Federal Chapter 2 : Federal ConstitutionalConstitutional Background: Background: Means/End TestingMeans/End Testing

• Common Type of Constitutional Analysis

• Asks if • Means Chosen (Particular State Law) is Sufficiently Well-Designed to Achieve …

• An End (State Interest) that is Sufficiently Important

•Rational Basis Review (or Scrutiny) :• Is State Law Rationally Related …

• To a Legitimate State Interest

Chapter 2 : Federal Chapter 2 : Federal ConstitutionalConstitutional Background: Background: Means/End TestingMeans/End Testing

• Common Type of Constitutional Analysis • Rational Basis Review (or Scrutiny) :Rational Basis Review (or Scrutiny) :

• Is State Law Rationally Related …

• To a Legitimate State Interest

• Used When Deferring to State LegislaturesUsed When Deferring to State Legislatures

• Compare “Heightened ScrutinyHeightened Scrutiny”: StrictStrict or IntermediateIntermediate• Used when we don’t fully trust the democratic processUsed when we don’t fully trust the democratic process

• Not deference, but closer look = more scrutinyNot deference, but closer look = more scrutiny

Chapter 2 : Federal Constitutional Background:

Means/End TestingRational Basis Scrutiny

• Must be Rationally Related …

• …to Legitimate State Interest

• Used for Ordinary Legislation (where deferring to legislature)

• Gov’t Almost Always Wins

Strict Scrutiny • Must be Narrowly Tailored …

• … to Compelling State Interest

• Used for, e.g., Lines Drawn on Basis of Race, Religion, Speakers’ Point of View

• Gov’t Almost Never Wins

Chapter 2 : Federal Constitutional Background:

Means/End TestingIntermediate Scrutiny

• Must be Reasonably Necessary …

• … to Substantial State Interest

• Used for, e.g., Lines Drawn on Basis of Sex; Restrictions on Commercial Speech

• Govt Sometimes Wins

Strict Scrutiny

• Must be Narrowly Tailored …

• … to Compelling State Interest

• Used for, e.g., Lines Drawn on Basis of Race, Religion, Speakers’ Point of View

• Govt Almost Never Wins

Chapter 2 : Federal Constitutional Background

Thrust of Chapter 2•Midkiff: US SCt uses Rational Basis Review as test for when state exercise of Eminent Domain power is for “Public Use”

•Debate: Is so much deference appropriate? • Many States adopt/use less deferential tests

• US SCt in Kelo reaffirms Midkiff (5-4) BUT some Justices suggest circumstances where they would use stricter test

•Lawyering Focus of Chapter 2: Applying Legal Tests/Rules to Facts

Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement& the Public Use Requirement

•Federal Constitutional BackgroundFederal Constitutional Background• Deference, Rational Basis, Heightened Scrutiny

•The Fifth Amdt, Eminent Domain & Public Use

• Limited Federal Review Under Berman & Midkiff

• State Public Use Standards

• Kelo & Beyond

Chapter 2 : Takings Clause of 5th Amdt

Takings Clause of the Fifth Amdt of the U.S. Constitution

“[N]or shall private property be taken for public use

without just compensation”

•Applies to States via 14th Amdt (incorporation)

•Gives Rise to

1. Eminent Domain Cases

2. “Takings” Cases

Chapter 2 : Takings Clause of 5th Amdt

Takings Clause: Takings Clause: “[N]or shall private property be taken for public usepublic use without just just

compensationcompensation”

1.Eminent Domain Cases (Chapter 2)• Govt Deliberately Attempts to Purchase Private

Property (“Condemnation” Action)• Takings Clause requires:

• “For Public Use” (Our Issue: Midkiff, Kelo, etc.)• “Just Compensation” (= Fair Market Value)

Chapter 2 : Takings Clause of 5th AmdtTakings Clause : “[N]or shall private property be taken for

public use without just compensation”1.Eminent Domain Cases (Chapter 2)

2.2. Takings Cases (Along Edge of Course)Takings Cases (Along Edge of Course)• Govt Not Trying to Purchase, but to Regulate

• Property Owner Claims Regulation Effectively “Takes” Property so Govt Must Cease or Pay (“Inverse Condemnation” Action)

• Claim made to USSCt in Pruneyard & Schmid

• Complex caselaw outside scope of this class

Chapter 2 : Eminent Domain: Some Policy Concerns

•Eminent Domain = Involuntary Transfer • Like Intestacy (in Chapter 3) & Adverse Possession (Chapter 5)

• Eminent Domain (ED!) Very Common & Important Kind of Involuntary Transfer

• Gov’t Can Force Owner to Sell• DQ2.01-2.03 Get At Underlying Issues

YELLOWSTONE (DQ2.01-2.03)

GIANT GEYSER

Chapter 2 : Eminent Domain: Some Policy Concerns•DQ2.01 (Yellowstone): Why not require govt to bargain for land like other purchasers?

Chapter 2 : Eminent Domain: Some Policy Concerns

•DQ2.01 (Yellowstone): Why not require govt to bargain for land like other purchasers?

• Holdout Problems & Other Transaction Costs: Don’t Want to Block Important Projects or Drive Up Costs

• Chapter Title: “The Cost of Living in a Democratic Society”

• Can View as “Tax” for Living in Society w Schools, Roads, Other Govt Buildings & Projects, Police, Military, etc.

• Can View as Slight Advantage Given to Democratic Gov’t (Compared with Private Developers) to Accomplish the People’s Purposes.