{"title":"走向环境企业家:在纽约恢复公共信任原则","authors":"M. Benn","doi":"10.2307/40041305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The public trust doctrine provides that government holds title to certain lands and waterways in trust for the public benefit and public use. While the common law doctrine varies from state to state, historically it “requires that . . . trust land[s] be accessible and used for a public purpose; that [they] be put to . . . uses appropriate to the resource; and, in some cases, that [they] not be sold.” It does not, however, foreclose the private lease and license of public lands; rather, it requires that such lands be utilized primarily for the public benefit, and only incidentally for private benefit. Thus, fundamentally, the public trust doctrine incorporates a public use test. The New York public trust doctrine, as it applies to public parkland, has nebulously defined “public benefit” and “public use” as a “park,” in contrast to a “non-park,” use. In this Comment, I argue for","PeriodicalId":48012,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law Review","volume":"155 1","pages":"203"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2006-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40041305","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards Environmental Entrepreneurship: Restoring the Public Trust Doctrine in New York\",\"authors\":\"M. Benn\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/40041305\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The public trust doctrine provides that government holds title to certain lands and waterways in trust for the public benefit and public use. While the common law doctrine varies from state to state, historically it “requires that . . . trust land[s] be accessible and used for a public purpose; that [they] be put to . . . uses appropriate to the resource; and, in some cases, that [they] not be sold.” It does not, however, foreclose the private lease and license of public lands; rather, it requires that such lands be utilized primarily for the public benefit, and only incidentally for private benefit. Thus, fundamentally, the public trust doctrine incorporates a public use test. The New York public trust doctrine, as it applies to public parkland, has nebulously defined “public benefit” and “public use” as a “park,” in contrast to a “non-park,” use. In this Comment, I argue for\",\"PeriodicalId\":48012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Pennsylvania Law Review\",\"volume\":\"155 1\",\"pages\":\"203\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40041305\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Pennsylvania Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/40041305\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40041305","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Towards Environmental Entrepreneurship: Restoring the Public Trust Doctrine in New York
The public trust doctrine provides that government holds title to certain lands and waterways in trust for the public benefit and public use. While the common law doctrine varies from state to state, historically it “requires that . . . trust land[s] be accessible and used for a public purpose; that [they] be put to . . . uses appropriate to the resource; and, in some cases, that [they] not be sold.” It does not, however, foreclose the private lease and license of public lands; rather, it requires that such lands be utilized primarily for the public benefit, and only incidentally for private benefit. Thus, fundamentally, the public trust doctrine incorporates a public use test. The New York public trust doctrine, as it applies to public parkland, has nebulously defined “public benefit” and “public use” as a “park,” in contrast to a “non-park,” use. In this Comment, I argue for