Music: Alberta Hunter Amtrak Blues (1980) CHLORINE: DQ111 Collett, Andrea Darville, Rene Tomlinson, Trey Moskal, Tommy HELIUM: 20s Cases
Morgan, Chris Davis, Justin Yannuzzi, Chris Pea, Belia Miller & Sax p.98 the state was under the necessity of making a choice between the preservation of one
class of property and that of the other wherever both existed in dangerous proximity. Miller & Sax It would have been none the less a choice if, instead of enacting the present statute, the state, by doing nothing, had
permitted serious injury to the apple orchards within its borders to go on unchecked. Miller & Sax When forced to such a choice the state does not exceed its constitutional powers by deciding upon the destruction of
one class of property in order to save another which, in the judgment of the legislature, is of greater value to the public. Miller & Sax NOTE: Choice between two conflicting land uses (= arbiter case) is OK even if state has a very strong
interest in choosing one over the other. Cant be true that the better the states reasons, the more likely it has to pay compensation. Miller & Sax When forced to such a choice the state does not exceed its constitutional powers by
deciding upon the destruction of one class of property in order to save another which, in the judgment of the legislature, is of greater value to the public. Miller & Sax NOTE: Court allows state legislature to make this choice. Court does not
say it is the job of federal courts to make it. Miller & Sax Case says choice here is between the preservation of one class of property and that of the other. NOT between any two private interests
NOT between public and private interests Uranium DQ111 CHLORINE DQ111 What rules can you derive from Miller? Uranium DQ111
CHLORINE DQ111 What rules can you derive from Miller? Can choose between one kind of property and another in public interest In choosing, can prefer public interest
even to the extent of destruction of one kind of property Effect of Miller on meaning of Hadacheck? Uranium DQ111 CHLORINE DQ111
Effect on meaning of Hadacheck? Explicitly reaffirms Hadacheck Says dont need to be technical about nuisance Seems to characterize Hadacheck as a destruction of property case Can take value to 0 where choosing one kind of property over another
Effect of Miller on meaning of Mahon? Uranium DQ111 CHLORINE DQ111 Effect on meaning of Mahon? Clarifies that Mahon didnt overrule Hadacheck Reciprocity not necessary; none here Can take value to 0 where choosing one kind of
property over another Maybe suggests dont look at smallest possible unit of property (trees) Maybe makes Mahon small case about explicit contract HELIUM: OTHER 1920s CASES Thrust of Euclid?
HELIUM: OTHER 1920s CASES Euclid upholds facial validity (under police power) of modern comprehensive zoning scheme Significance to the line of cases weve read?
HELIUM: OTHER 1920s CASES Euclid upholds facial validity (under police power) of modern comprehensive zoning scheme Significant deference to legislative choices & line-drawing (in the
abstract). HELIUM: OTHER 1920s CASES Euclid: [I]t may happen that not only offensive or dangerous industries will be excluded, but those which are neither offensive nor dangerous will share the same fate.
HELIUM: OTHER 1920s CASES Euclid: But this happens in respect of many practiceforbidding laws which this court has upheld, although drawn in general terms so as to include individual cases that may turn out to be innocuous in themselves. The inclusion of a reasonable margin, to
insure effective enforcement, will not put upon a law the stamp of invalidity. HELIUM: OTHER 1920s CASES Euclid: Such laws may also find their justification in the fact that, in some fields, the bad fades into the good by such insensible degrees that the two are
not capable of being readily distinguished and separated in terms of legislation. HELIUM: OTHER 1920s CASES Thrust of Nectow? HELIUM:
OTHER 1920s CASES Nectow finds unconstitutional the application of a similar zoning scheme to a particular parcel Significance to the line of cases weve read? HELIUM:
OTHER 1920s CASES Nectow finds unconst. the application of a similar zoning scheme to a particular parcel No good where eliminated profitable use of lot *AND* not in furtherance of police power interests HELIUM: OTHER 1920s CASES
Nectow finds unconst. the application of a similar zoning scheme to a particular parcel No good where eliminated profitable use of lot *AND* not in furtherance of police power interests PRETTY NARROW LIMIT! Exam Technique Workshops
Tomorrow 1:00-1:45 Room 209 Thursday 12:35-1:45 Room 109 Not Substantially Different from Prior Years Versions Available Online on Academic Achievement Website Thursdays Session will be Taped and Posted Transition 1928-78:
Alberta Hunter Before Michaelman: Intro to Penn Central (DQ116: Fajer) WEDNESDAY: NEONS DQ117 DQ116: Intro to Penn Central
Govt action at issue? Purpose? Limits on the use of property?
Uses still permissible? Harm to the petitioners? Demsetz Takings story? DQ116: Intro to Penn Central Govt action at issue? NYC ordinance to preserve historic bldgs. Places some obligations on owners (good repair/maintain exterior use) Tries to preserve reasonable rate of
return. i) owners can transfer development rights to other nearby lots they own ii) tax breaks DQ116: Intro to Penn Central Purpose? Tourist $$$; Civic Pride NYC Bankruptcy
I NY DQ116: Intro to Penn Central Limits on the use of property? Uses still permissible? Need govt approval before structural changes; must maintain properly. Can do anything you were doing before designation; can do structural changes
if approved. DQ116: Intro to Penn Central Grand Central Stn designated historic site. Penn Central (RR) owns. Harm to RR? RR wants 55-story tower above station. Landmark Bd disapproves: "aesthetic joke". Financial Loss: About $2 million/yr in rent BUT can sell TDRs to make up some
RR concedes that it can still earn reasonable return running station as is. Qs on Facts? Michaelman: Cost/Benefit Analysis of Decision Whether to Compensate Once state has decided to regulate, therell be winners & losers. Do
you compensate the losers? Michaelman: Cost/Benefit Analysis of Decision Whether to Compensate Compensate the losers if: Costs of Compensating less than Costs of Not Compensating
Costs of Compensating = Settlement Costs INCLUDES: Cost of paying claimant Cost of paying everyone like claimant Costs of administering payment scheme E.g., 8% per pair of blue jeans
Focus on costs of processing; valuing Costs of Compensating = Settlement Costs LIKELY TO BE HIGHEST WHEN Lots of claimants Claims intangible or otherwise hard to value
Costs of Not Compensating = Demoralization Costs INCLUDES: Upset to losing party Upset to similarly situated parties Upset to sympathizers Can manifest as
Disincentives to future investment Lack of faith in govt & resulting behavior Costs of Not Compensating = Demoralization Costs Focus on likely public reaction. Costs of Not Compensating =
Demoralization Costs LIKELY TO BE HIGHEST WHEN People see as unfair or arbitrary Relatively few people bearing very high burdens not seen as relating to their own behavior
