May 2019

A law journal article worth reading (short, not too many distracting footnotes) on takings theory.

In Imperfect Takings, 46 Fordham Urban Law Journal 130 (2019), Professor Shai Stern writes about what he calls the “three safeguards” in eminent domain (due process, public use, and mandatory compensation), and how to evaluate the legality of takings when all three are not accomplished perfectly. He argues that his balancing model “allows the government to exercise its expropriation power properly even in imperfect circumstances, while still sufficiently protecting property owners and society from abuse of that power.”

Our thinking: in our experience, none of the bars for the three safeguards are all that high, so we are not convinced this model is new. Because this is what courts already do, no? In Kelo for example, the majority mostly shrugged its shoulders at a stricter reading of the public use requirement because it was

Continue Reading New Article: Imperfect Takings

As part of a federally-funded highway project, the WV DOT took a portion of parcels belonging to several property owners. The partial takings ended up landlocking one tract. So the DOT proposed building an access road to that parcel. The owners didn’t think this was the best idea, because “maintaining a road in that area would be unreasonably costly” because the area is steep and in a slide area. 

The owners counterclaimed, seeking an order to compel the DOT to take this landlocked track as an “uneconomic remnant” under the Uniform Relocation Act, which defines that term as “a parcel of real property in which the owner is left with an interest after the partial acquisition of the owner’s property and which the head of the Federal agency concerned has determined has little or no value or utility to the owner.” 42 U.S.C. § 4651(9).

The trial court concluded the

Continue Reading W Va: Decision To Take “Uneconomic Remnant” Lies Solely With Agency (Not The Owner, Not The Court)