PLF on Eminent Domain

Why Prop. 99 Will Do Nothing to Protect Property Rights

The Institute for Justice has prepared an important analysis of California's Proposition 99, the eminent domain initiative sponsored by an alliance of government agencies. You can read it here. IJ concludes,

Prop 99 will provide insubstantial protection against the use of eminent domain for private commercial development. Small business owners will continue to lose not only their buildings, but also their incomes. All farmers and working class renters are at risk.  Homeowners may not even be protected. Californians require real, substantive reform for everyone and Prop 99 does not come close to providing it.

Epstein on the Didden Case

Here's an article by University of Chicago law professor Richard A. Epstein on the awful Didden v. Port Chester case which the Supreme Court declined to hear last year. Here's the brief that Pacific Legal Foundation filed in that case. Excerpt:

[O]ur Supreme Court remains on a constitutional holiday. Over and over the justices blithely assume that conscientious planners acting in good faith are entitled to ample discretion in allocating the costs and benefits of our social life. Sounds great on paper, but the sorry saga of Port Chester shows that when it comes to real estate, we have a government not of laws but of politicians. In matters that they really care about, like race and free speech, judges are quite capable of seeing through airy abstractions to harsh realities. Why can't they do the same for property rights?

More here by Prof. Ilya Somin.

Orange County Eminent Domain Event

by Timothy Sandefur

I will be appearing on a panel tonight at Chapman University School of Law to discuss "Eminent Domain, Property Rights, And Ballot Proposals: Where Do The Government Powers End And Citizens' Rights Begin?" The event is free to the public. For more information, email [email protected]