scholarly journals Heritage Incentive Programs : The Key to Achieving the Potential of Heritage Conservation in Ontario

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenna Langdale
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Heritage Conservation ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Incentive Programs ◽  
Incentive Program ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Property Owners ◽  
Heritage Buildings ◽  
Effective Conservation

This paper explores heriage conservation and its implementation in Ontario and argues that changes to the Ontario Heritage Act in 2005 raised concerns about the infringement of private property rights for the conservation of a public good. The author argues that greater honesty, foresight and more robust incentive programs are critical to the effective conservation on Ontario's cultural heritage resources and in balancing public and private interests. A survey of heritage incentive programs identified that Ontario's 10 largest municipalities offer at least one incentive program for designated property owners. The survey also identified numerous small municipalities with a rich complement of incentive programs. Recommendations are provided for more flexibility both in the framework and approach to heritage conservation in Ontario including expanded heritage incentive programs, greater flexibility in alterations to heritage buildings and less onerous requirements for heritage incentive program applications.

Heritage Incentive Programs : The Key to Achieving the Potential of Heritage Conservation in Ontario

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenna Langdale
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Heritage Conservation ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Incentive Programs ◽  
Incentive Program ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Property Owners ◽  
Heritage Buildings ◽  
Effective Conservation

This paper explores heriage conservation and its implementation in Ontario and argues that changes to the Ontario Heritage Act in 2005 raised concerns about the infringement of private property rights for the conservation of a public good. The author argues that greater honesty, foresight and more robust incentive programs are critical to the effective conservation on Ontario's cultural heritage resources and in balancing public and private interests. A survey of heritage incentive programs identified that Ontario's 10 largest municipalities offer at least one incentive program for designated property owners. The survey also identified numerous small municipalities with a rich complement of incentive programs. Recommendations are provided for more flexibility both in the framework and approach to heritage conservation in Ontario including expanded heritage incentive programs, greater flexibility in alterations to heritage buildings and less onerous requirements for heritage incentive program applications.

Rogers' Chocolates Ltd. and the Corporation of the City of Victoria: A Case Comment on Involuntary Designation and the Conservation of Heritage Buildings

2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian S. J. Piggott
Keyword(s):  
Local Government ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Heritage Conservation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Property Owners ◽  
Heritage Buildings ◽  
Regulatory Approach ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The One

AbstractThe process adopted by the local government to protect the interior of an old building in Victoria, British Columbia, culminated in a significant compensation award in favor of the building's owner and highlights the shortcomings of a coercive regulatory approach to heritage conservation. This study focuses on the relationship between cooperative resolution of conflicts between the rights of the public to protect heritage buildings and the rights of private property owners to the use of their property without interference, on the one hand, and the long-term utility and conservation of historic buildings and the sustainability of local government heritage programs, on the other. Analysis includes discussion on (a) key issues arising out of an involuntary heritage designation, (b) flexible alternative conservation mechanisms and incentives available to local governments, (c) approaches to conservation of heritage buildings in other jurisdictions, and (d) opportunities for improvement in the local government heritage conservation program.

Indigenous property rights and river management

2001 ◽  
Vol 43 (9) ◽  
pp. 235-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Sheehan
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Marine Species ◽  
Resource Utilisation ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Native Title ◽  
Indigenous Property Rights

The presence of indigenous property rights and interests arising from the survival of native title in Australia presents unique issues in the management of rivers and riverine lands. Existing common law and statutory tidal and non-tidal rights are a complex overlay of public and private property rights which are themselves undergoing significant change through the commodification of many natural resources by Commonwealth and State governments, such as marine species stock and non-tidal water. The melding of indigenous values and management practices with existing management regimes for rivers and riverine lands offers considerable potential for both sustainability of resource utilisation, and respect and recognition of native title with resultant predicted benefits in the vexed area of compensation.

Inclusion and Representation: The Settlement of Property Claims of the Dispossessed in the Aftermath of an Armed Conflict

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-425
Author(s):  
Tamar Megiddo ◽  
Eyal Benvenisti
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Good ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Property Owners ◽  
The Government

AbstractThis Article examines the authority of states to settle individual private property claims in post–conflict negotiations towards settlement. We analyze this question by exploring the limits of states’ authority to take or limit private property rights for the public good. We argue that this authority rests on two cumulative justifications: the inclusion of the property owners among the public that stands to benefit from the public good, and their representation by the government that decides on the taking of the property. In post–conflict settlement, the negotiating states may redistribute both private property and the public good between and within their respective communities. Their authority to redistribute continues to rests on the same justifications of inclusion and representation. Hence, their authority extends only to the redistribution of property of owners who are members of the respective communities that negotiate the agreement, and who are represented by a negotiating government.

scholarly journals Rejoinder to Dominiak on the necessity of easements

Ekonomia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-25
Author(s):  
Walter E. Block
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Virgin Land ◽  
Positive Rights ◽  
Property Owners

Dominiak (2019) agrees with the Blockian proviso: homesteading in a bagel or donut format is illicit, since it allows the owner to control land (the hole, the territory in the middle) with which he has not mixed his labor. Thus, a person who does so must open up an easement allowing outside home-steaders through his property, and into this so-far virgin land. But, this author claims this proviso of Block’s does not go far enough. It should also be extended further, not only to incorporate the bagel format, but also in justification of easements through private property in emergencies, and so as to avoid entrapment. I strongly support Dominiak in his defense of the Blockian proviso against critics (Kinsella, 2007, 2009C) in the first part of his excellent paper, but find I cannot agree with this second contention of his. In short, Dominiak agrees with Block regarding easements in the bagel case, but wants to extend this concept to when property owners are encircled, and thus trapped. In my view, extending easements to cases other than the bagel is incompatible with libertarianism’s emphasis on the sanctity of private property rights. Certain positive rights (to, in this case, movement) are essential to Dominiak’s argument. And these rights do not exist. Therefore, Dominiak’s argument is unsound.

scholarly journals The Categorical Lucas Rule and the Nuisance and Background Principles Exception

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol N. Brown
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Private Property ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Regulatory Takings ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Property Owners ◽  
State And Local

This article examines the seminal 1992 United States Supreme Court decision, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 1 specifically focusing on the Lucas nuisance exception. I surveyed approximately 1,600 reported regulatory takings cases decided since the Lucas decision involving Lucas takings challenges. I identified the statutory nuisance cases in which state and local governments unsuccessfully asserted the Lucas nuisance exception as a defense to the courts' findings of a Lucas taking. This article examines the prospective potential of these cases for assisting private property owners in enhancing private property rights protections within the area of regulatory takings.

Beyond Public and Private: Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID CIEPLEY
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Government Grants ◽  
Public Corporations ◽  
Property Owners ◽  
Distinct Category ◽  
Private Government ◽  
Economics And Politics

This article challenges the liberal, contractual theory of the corporation and argues for replacing it with a political theory of the corporation. Corporations are government-like in their powers, and government grants them both their external “personhood” and their internal governing authority. They are thus not simply private. Yet they are privately organized and financed and therefore not simply public. Corporations transgress all the basic dichotomies that structure liberal treatments of law, economics, and politics: public/private, government/market, privilege/equality, and status/contract. They are “franchise governments” that cannot be satisfactorily assimilated to liberalism. The liberal effort to assimilate them, treating them as contractually constituted associations of private property owners, endows them with rights they ought not have, exacerbates their irresponsibility, and compromises their principal public benefit of generating long-term growth. Instead, corporations need to be placed in a distinct category—neither public nor private, but “corporate”—to be regulated by distinct rules and norms.

Public Office and Private Property

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Political Elite ◽  
The Political ◽  
Modern State ◽  
Central Control ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Structural Problem ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
The Government ◽  
Freedom Of Action

Removal of the judges' right to discretion, to exercise their arbitrium, meant that they were less likely to convict criminals, instead choosing to let trials lapse altogether. This chapter discusses such findings in terms of the lesser court staff and the concrete practice of justice at the court. It tries to demonstrate the existence of a gulf between the rhetoric and practice of justice, between the high concerns of the political elite, and the actual implementation of power at the bottom level. The early modern state was an agglomeration of public and private interests, and its freedom of action was correspondingly limited. While the government struggled to impose central control over the courts, at the same time it allowed key elements of its institutional structure to fall into private hands. Corruption was a structural problem that would not be eliminated by rare and toothless government investigations.

Property Systems and Environmental Regulation

2019 ◽  
pp. 702-718
Author(s):  
Christopher P. Rodgers
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Environmental Regulation ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Property Holding ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the impact of property rights on environmental regulation. It first considers a range of property paradigms and how they relate to environmental law, including entitlements-based models of property and resource allocation models of property, before turning to ‘public’ and ‘private’ conceptions of property. It takes note of the fact that environmental protection is a ‘public’ or communal interest, but assimilating public interest objectives into systems of property law based on notions of private right has been problematic, especially for Western systems. The chapter also analyses the interactions between ‘public’ interest and ‘private’ property rights; the role of customary law and cultural norms in the organization of property holding and resource use, using the Maori case as example; and how property structures foster environmental stewardship.

scholarly journals PUBLIC NEEDS AS CONDITION FOR LIMITATING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHT TO LAND

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellina Khashchina ◽  
Yuriy Ginzburg
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Economic Analysis Of Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Eastern European Countries ◽  
Economic Tools

The article is devoted to the analysis of foreign legislation regulating the conditions for seizure of land plots to meet public needs. The evolution of approaches to understanding the private property right from Antiquity to Modern age as long as the specific character of  property right to land including possibilities of its legal limitation for meeting socially prominent aims are explored. Special attention is paid to the Eastern European countries’ legislation as their statutory regulation of private property out of the command economy is relatively young. Having analyzed the constitutions, land legislation and law enforcement practice of several foreign states a conclusion is made about a similar legal structure of land withdrawal where expropriation is allowed in favor of both public and private subjects if their activity meets socially significant needs of a wide range of people and achieving this goal by any other way is impossible. The American practice of “economic analysis of law” allowing to appreciate the public benefit by the economic tools is positively assessed. It is also stated that it is impossible to envisage a list of specific situations that fall under the concept “public needs” and it is necessary to assess the correlation of public and private interests in each specific case. At the same time, in order to protect the rights of owners such an assessment should be carried out before the seizure including by public hearings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document