2006年征收行动后寻求平衡

IF 5.2 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2007-05-01 DOI:10.2307/20455767
Hannah L. Jacobs
{"title":"2006年征收行动后寻求平衡","authors":"Hannah L. Jacobs","doi":"10.2307/20455767","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The partial regulatory takings movement seeks to compensate private landowners when regulations diminish their land values. This movement has grown in recent years, particularly at the state level. Scholars have focused thus far on the cost of compensation and its effect on the regulations that governments enact or enforce. In addition to exploring those concerns, this Note argues that partial regulatory takings regimes threaten to constrain residents’ ability to influence their communities’ growth and character. The greatest impact could fall on low-income communities, many of which contain disproportionate levels of undesirable land uses and lack adequate financial resources to influence land use planning in the absence of regulatory solutions or alternative venues. To address these problems, state and local governments should implement what I call a “regulatory balances” regime, strengthening participatory planning venues and funding the resulting measures. author. Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2007; Dartmouth College, A.B. 2002. I send my heartfelt gratitude to my fiance, Samuel Wiseman, for his constant support and help—from editing to organization to encouragement—throughout this process. Thanks also to my parents for their patience; to Josh Berman for the topic suggestion; to Adam Dressner, Andrea Gelatt, Grace Leslie, and Matthew Splitek for assistance with sources; and to Will Baude, Megan Ceronsky, Nicole Johnson, and other members of the Property, Social Justice, and the Environment Seminar for constructive discussion. Finally, many thanks to David Spohr and Professor Carol Rose, and to Annie Decker and the other editors of The Yale Law Journal, for their invaluable editing and reviewing assistance. JACOBSFORMATTEDFORSC1_01-31-07 5/17/2007 9:35:24 AM searching for balance","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"92 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2007-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Searching for Balance in the Aftermath of the 2006 Takings Initiatives\",\"authors\":\"Hannah L. Jacobs\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/20455767\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The partial regulatory takings movement seeks to compensate private landowners when regulations diminish their land values. This movement has grown in recent years, particularly at the state level. Scholars have focused thus far on the cost of compensation and its effect on the regulations that governments enact or enforce. In addition to exploring those concerns, this Note argues that partial regulatory takings regimes threaten to constrain residents’ ability to influence their communities’ growth and character. The greatest impact could fall on low-income communities, many of which contain disproportionate levels of undesirable land uses and lack adequate financial resources to influence land use planning in the absence of regulatory solutions or alternative venues. To address these problems, state and local governments should implement what I call a “regulatory balances” regime, strengthening participatory planning venues and funding the resulting measures. author. Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2007; Dartmouth College, A.B. 2002. I send my heartfelt gratitude to my fiance, Samuel Wiseman, for his constant support and help—from editing to organization to encouragement—throughout this process. Thanks also to my parents for their patience; to Josh Berman for the topic suggestion; to Adam Dressner, Andrea Gelatt, Grace Leslie, and Matthew Splitek for assistance with sources; and to Will Baude, Megan Ceronsky, Nicole Johnson, and other members of the Property, Social Justice, and the Environment Seminar for constructive discussion. Finally, many thanks to David Spohr and Professor Carol Rose, and to Annie Decker and the other editors of The Yale Law Journal, for their invaluable editing and reviewing assistance. JACOBSFORMATTEDFORSC1_01-31-07 5/17/2007 9:35:24 AM searching for balance\",\"PeriodicalId\":48293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yale Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"92 1\",\"pages\":\"3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yale Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/20455767\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/20455767","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

部分监管征收运动旨在补偿私人土地所有者,因为监管减少了他们的土地价值。这一运动近年来有所发展,尤其是在州一级。到目前为止,学者们关注的是赔偿成本及其对政府制定或执行的法规的影响。除了探讨这些问题外,本说明还认为,部分监管征收制度可能会限制居民影响其社区发展和特色的能力。影响最大的可能是低收入社区,其中许多社区不受欢迎的土地使用程度过高,在缺乏监管解决办法或替代场所的情况下,缺乏足够的财政资源来影响土地使用规划。为了解决这些问题,州和地方政府应该实施我所说的“监管平衡”制度,加强参与式规划场所,并为由此产生的措施提供资金。作者。耶鲁大学法学院,法学博士,预计2007年;达特茅斯学院,2002年。我衷心感谢我的未婚夫塞缪尔·怀斯曼(Samuel Wiseman),在整个过程中,他从编辑到组织再到鼓励,一直给予我支持和帮助。也要感谢父母的耐心;向Josh Berman提出主题建议;感谢Adam Dressner、Andrea Gelatt、Grace Leslie和Matthew Splitek协助提供消息来源;并感谢Will Baude、Megan Ceronsky、Nicole Johnson以及财产、社会正义和环境研讨会的其他成员进行建设性的讨论。最后,非常感谢David Spohr和Carol Rose教授,以及Annie Decker和《耶鲁法律期刊》的其他编辑,感谢他们宝贵的编辑和审稿帮助。寻找平衡
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Searching for Balance in the Aftermath of the 2006 Takings Initiatives
The partial regulatory takings movement seeks to compensate private landowners when regulations diminish their land values. This movement has grown in recent years, particularly at the state level. Scholars have focused thus far on the cost of compensation and its effect on the regulations that governments enact or enforce. In addition to exploring those concerns, this Note argues that partial regulatory takings regimes threaten to constrain residents’ ability to influence their communities’ growth and character. The greatest impact could fall on low-income communities, many of which contain disproportionate levels of undesirable land uses and lack adequate financial resources to influence land use planning in the absence of regulatory solutions or alternative venues. To address these problems, state and local governments should implement what I call a “regulatory balances” regime, strengthening participatory planning venues and funding the resulting measures. author. Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2007; Dartmouth College, A.B. 2002. I send my heartfelt gratitude to my fiance, Samuel Wiseman, for his constant support and help—from editing to organization to encouragement—throughout this process. Thanks also to my parents for their patience; to Josh Berman for the topic suggestion; to Adam Dressner, Andrea Gelatt, Grace Leslie, and Matthew Splitek for assistance with sources; and to Will Baude, Megan Ceronsky, Nicole Johnson, and other members of the Property, Social Justice, and the Environment Seminar for constructive discussion. Finally, many thanks to David Spohr and Professor Carol Rose, and to Annie Decker and the other editors of The Yale Law Journal, for their invaluable editing and reviewing assistance. JACOBSFORMATTEDFORSC1_01-31-07 5/17/2007 9:35:24 AM searching for balance
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Yale Law Journal Online is the online companion to The Yale Law Journal. It replaces The Pocket Part, which was the first such companion to be published by a leading law review. YLJ Online will continue The Pocket Part"s mission of augmenting the scholarship printed in The Yale Law Journal by providing original Essays, legal commentaries, responses to articles printed in the Journal, podcast and iTunes University recordings of various pieces, and other works by both established and emerging academics and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Abolitionist Prison Litigation How to Save the Supreme Court Prosecuting Corporate Crime When Firms Are Too Big to Jail: Investigation, Deterrence, and Judicial Review The Statutory Separation of Powers A Cooperative Federalism Approach to Shareholder Arbitration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1