Property rights in state legislatures: rural-urban differences in support for state anti-takings bills

2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rolf Pendall ◽  
Ronald M Wolanski ◽  
Douglas McGovern
1996 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-116
Author(s):  
Craig L. Infanger

AbstractMajor regulatory reform issues which involve environmental policy include issues of unfunded mandates, risk assessment, and property rights. Each of these proposed reforms involves major changes in environmental policies with impacts on different groups. Property rights is the core issue in Congress and state legislatures, with both regulatory takings and just compensation being the major parameters. Economists can participate effectively in this policy debate with successful research and education programs addressing the divisive issues.


2004 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
PEVERILL SQUIRE ◽  
KEITH E. HAMM ◽  
RONALD D. HEDLUND ◽  
GARY F. MONCRIEF

One of the most creative theories advanced about legislative organization in recent years is Katz and Sala's linkage of the development of committee property rights in the US House of Representatives to the introduction of the Australian ballot. Katz and Sala argue that the Australian ballot – a government-printed ballot cast in secret that replaced a party-produced ballot that was cast in public – gave members of the House an incentive to pursue personal constituency votes. This, in turn, led to the rise of committee property rights as members sought to keep their committee assignments from term to term because of the potential electoral benefits they derived from them. In this Note we use the state legislative committee membership dataset collected by Hamm and Hedlund and their colleagues to test whether committee property rights appeared in American state legislatures at roughly the same time as Katz and Sala find they emerged in the US House. State legislatures were, of course, exposed to the same electoral innovation at the same time. But, while in some ways state legislatures were much like Congress as organizations, in other ways they were very different. Our cross-sectional data and the variance in important institutional variables they provide allow us to test a critical proposition about the importance of membership stability rates in mediating the rise of committee property rights. We also go beyond Katz and Sala's analysis by testing to see if differences in Australian ballot design (office column and party bloc) across the states influenced the behaviour of legislators in the way their theory suggests.


Author(s):  
Caitlyn Ashley ◽  
Elizabeth Spencer Berthiaume ◽  
Philip Berzin ◽  
Rikki Blassingame ◽  
Stephanie Bradley Fryer ◽  
...  

Eminent Domain is the power of the government or quasi-government entities to take private or public property interests through condemnation. Eminent Domain has been a significant issue since 1879 when, in the case of Boom Company v. Patterson, the Supreme Court first acknowledged that the power of eminent domain may be delegated by state legislatures to agencies and non-governmental entities. Thus, the era of legal takings began. Though an important legal dispute then, more recently eminent domain has blossomed into an enduring contentious social and political problem throughout the United States. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Thus, in the wake of the now infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London, where the Court upheld the taking of private property for purely economic benefit as a “public use,” the requirement of “just compensation” stands as the primary defender of constitutionally protected liberty under the federal constitution. In response to Kelo, many state legislatures passed a variety of eminent domain reforms specifically tailoring what qualifies as a public use and how just compensation should be calculated. Texas landowners recognize that the state’s population is growing at a rapid pace. There is an increasing need for more land and resources such as energy and transportation. But, private property rights are equally important, especially in Texas, and must be protected as well. Eminent domain and the condemnation process is not a willing buyer and willing seller transition; it is a legally forced sale. Therefore, it is necessary to consider further improvements to the laws that govern the use of eminent domain so Texas landowners can have more assurance that this process is fair and respectful of their private property rights when they are forced to relinquish their land. This report compiles statutes and information from the other forty-nine states to illustrate how they address key eminent domain issues. Further, this report endeavors to provide a neutral third voice in Texas to strike a more appropriate balance between individual’s property rights and the need for increased economic development. This report breaks down eminent domain into seven major topics that, in addition to Texas, seemed to be similar in many of the other states. These categories are: (1) Awarding of Attorneys’ Fee; (2) Compensation and Valuation; (3) Procedure Prior to Suit; (4) Condemnation Procedure; (5) What Cannot be Condemned; (6) Public Use & Authority to Condemn; and (7) Abandonment. In analyzing these seven categories, this report does not seek to advance a particular interest but only to provide information on how Texas law differs from other states. This report lays out trends seen across other states that are either similar or dissimilar to Texas, and additionally, discusses interesting and unique laws employed by other states that may be of interest to Texas policy makers. Our research found three dominant categories which tend to be major issues across the country: (1) the awarding of attorneys’ fees; (2) the valuation and measurement of just compensation; and (3) procedure prior to suit.


2021 ◽  
pp. 146-152
Author(s):  
Claire Priest

This chapter focuses on the federal structure of debtor/creditor law in the founding era. In gaining independence from British rule, the colonists rejected the extractive taxes and trade policies that they felt would suppress economic growth. But independence posed the question of what role the new federal government would play in regulating state legislatures and how much power it would have to standardize state laws on property rights, the credit markets, and the economy. In America after the Revolution, the vast differences in local preferences on the issue of creditors' remedies expressed themselves not through occupational categorization, but instead through interstate variation and hostility toward federal government policies that might have imposed a uniform regime reminiscent of the Debt Recovery Act. Federalism emerged, in part, in response to the hostility toward Britain's colonial policies. The legacies of these policies — and of the reactions to them — still affect American economic, social, and political developments today.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Harris ◽  
Meina Cai ◽  
Ilia Murtazashvili ◽  
Jennifer Murtazashvili
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document