Taken By Regulation

The 9th Circuit considers the constitutionality of rent control

According to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, “private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation.” The classic example of this is eminent domain, where the government seizes property, compensates the owner with taxpayer dollars, and puts the property to an alleged public use. But what happens when government regulations violate property rights? Do regulatory takings require just compensation as well?

It depends. In Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon (1922), the Supreme Court held that “while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” But how far is too far?

That’s the question the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will confront on June 22 when it rehears the controversial case of Guggenheim v. City of Goleta. At issue is a Goleta, California, rent control ordinance enacted “to protect the owners and occupiers of mobile homes from unreasonable rents.” According to a 2009 decision written by Judge Jay Bybee for a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, the Goleta ordinance amounts to little more than a government “wealth transfer” from the owners of mobile home parks to their rental tenants, and thus “looks much more like a classic taking than a mere regulatory burden.” Under Bybee’s ruling—which the full 9th Circuit will reconsider—the city must either pay just compensation to the owners or scrap the law entirely.

For property rights activists, Guggenheim came as a welcome and somewhat surprising victory in the long war against California’s noxious regulatory regime. Yet there’s good reason to believe this victory will prove short-lived. No less an authority than University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein, author of the influential 1985 book Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, argues that Bybee’s decision is riddled with “multiple technical deficiencies” and that Bybee tried to “bite off more than he could chew.”

The trouble lies in the Supreme Court’s treatment of the Takings Clause, particularly the Court’s disastrous 1978 precedent in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York. In that regrettable decision the Court permitted New York’s Landmarks Preservation Commission to strip Penn Central of its lucrative air rights over Grand Central Station without providing any compensation—just or otherwise—for the loss. In essence, the commission forbid the company from erecting an office tower on top of Grand Central in order to preserve the train depot’s famous physical appearance.

That certainly sounds like a public use. After all, if the public gets to enjoy the aesthetic benefits of this untouched architectural marvel, why shouldn’t the public foot the bill via just compensation? As Justice William Rehnquist correctly observed in his dissent—where he was joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice John Paul Stevens—New York had clearly “destroyed—in a literal sense, 'taken'—substantial property rights of Penn Central.”

Furthermore, if the public thought its tax dollars were being ill-spent on that particular use, voters could take political action against the officials responsible for the offending regulation. That’s how it works when the government seizes land via eminent domain. (Which is not to say that eminent domain takings are free from corruption or abuse.) At the very least the property owners shouldn’t be the only ones bearing the cost of New York’s commitment to historical preservation.

Yet in his majority opinion in Penn Central, Justice William Brennan showed little concern for either property rights or public accountability. “A ‘taking’ may more readily be found when the interference with property can be characterized as a physical invasion by the government,” Brennan wrote. It was a convenient trick that denied Penn Central its air rights so long as the government didn’t build anything on top of Grand Central either—which was the whole point of the regulation in the first place. Furthermore, Brennan’s decision placed the burden of proof entirely on the victimized property owners, establishing a pro-government standard that gave the green light to uncompensated regulatory takings across the country.

That’s the ill-conceived precedent hovering over the Goleta rent control case. Until the Supreme Court reconsiders Penn Central and its dangerously flawed approach to the Takings Clause, property owners will remain at the mercy of unaccountable politicians, overzealous regulators, and precedent-bound courts. There’s nothing just about that.

Damon W. Root is an associate editor at Reason magazine.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Do regulatory takings require just compensation as well?

    Yes. Telling me what I can do with my private property is a taking.

  • ||

    That being said, I don't have a right to pollute without compensation, or fire weapons at my neighbor's house, or other initiations of force ... but regulations about other stuff are a taking.

  • St. V||

    Was that an attempt to anti-Tony'fy your post?

  • ||

    I made an overbroad assertion, then clarified it.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    It wasn't over broad. Firing weapons at your neighbor's house would involve you doing something with someone else's property.

  • ||

    It's more subtle than that. If the government says what you can do with property before you buy it, then it's not a taking. You haven't lost a dime to which you had any right.

    But if the government changes the rules after you've acquired the property, then indeed they've taken something from you. Presumably they've given something valuable to someone else, or everyone else (the public), so you have been forced to fork over some amount of your wealth to someone else. That's a taking.

  • ||

    Assuming that some entity other than a government owned the property before you bought it, then the government's restrictions on use aren't a taking from you, but certainly are a taking from the earlier owner. Or did I miss something?
    CB.

  • AA||

    Right. And does the new price reflect the previous taking?

  • RM||

    This is an interesting take on the subject that I have to admit I haven't thought of before.

  • ||

    A Supreme Court that can countenance Kelo won't find the takings clause here much of a hurdle.

  • qwerty||

    Exactly. It would be 5-4, with the four liberals + Kennedy saying, "screw you", and Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts dissenting. We...just...need...one...more.

  • ||

    in kelo, the property owner was compensated for the taking. A situation like this is taking without compensation. I don't see the parallel

  • ||

    The property owner was "compensated" for the taking. They were forced to sell at a price below what they valued the property at.

    In a regulatory taking, they take without any compensation at all.

    It's a difference in degree, not in kind.

  • ||

    The property owner was compensated for the market value of the property. (rightly or wrongly calculated). Eminent domain is a forced sale at market price, not the reluctant seller's desired price.

    A regulatory taking is a confiscation of value with no compensation. Difference in kind, not degree.

    I have long been bemused that kelo prompted such an outcry, considering she was compensated. There are vastly worse decisions - lucas comes to mind - that empower the government to confiscate most of a property's value with no compensation, as long as they stop short of 100%

    Neither property rights nor free speech are absolute, unfortunately, since Euclid, the courts have chosen to err on the side of the community rather than the property owner, and have resisted creating a bright line standard for permissible confiscation.

  • ||

    I have long been bemused that kelo prompted such an outcry, considering she was compensated.

    Refresh yourself on the difference between public use and public purpose, do some research on government abuse through designating property as "blighted", understand that the property that was taken is currently a vacant lot, and finally, accept that her house wasn't for fucking sale. Which part of that bemuses you?

  • ||

    working backwards...

    "her house wasn't for f*ing sale" - well yes, that's kind of why the power of emminent domain exists - to compel people to sell property they don't necessarily want to sell..

    "currently a vacant lot" - unfortunate, but hardly relevant to the SCOTUS decision at the time, don't you think?

    "Government abuse through designated property as blighted" - absolutely correct, and absolutely horrible, possibly illegal, but probably not unconstitutional, by any reading of the constitution
    "Public use/public purpose" You're right, there should be a bright line limitation on what qualifies for either. Unfortunately, there isn't. We are left with no guidance as to whether roads are, but solid waste treatment isn't, that hospitals are, but parks or redevelopment projects aren't - I'm not particularly a strict constructionalist, but the framers didn't do a great job of enshrining property rights, or of limiting what constitutes public purpose. Just because it's wrong, doesn't mean its unconstitutional, and since the property owner is compensated at fair market value under the law, it strikes me as less egregious than some of the other SCOTUS decisions cited.

    At the end of the day, forcibly purchasing somebody's house in the name of redevelopment strikes a chord with the general public, while telling a developer he can't do anything with the land he owns except pay taxes on it doesn't. So yeah, I'm bemused.

  • ||

    well yes, that's kind of why the power of eminent domain exists - to compel people to sell property they don't necessarily want to sell..

    That power is only legitimate (i.e. Constitutional) after it is established that there is a public use for the property being taken. For Suzette Kelo's house we were instead entreated with the stench of bullshit emanating from a colossal pile of "public purpose".

    I think the framers did a good enough job that I know the difference between a park and a pfucking Pfizer plant. The only appropriate responses that I can discern are anger and disgust.

  • Christ on a Cracker||

    Shouldn't that be a "pfucking Pfizer Pfacility"?

  • ||

    ". . .but the framers didn't do a great job of enshrining property rights. . ."

    +1

  • ||

    Why would you be bemused that Kelo prompted an outcry? Sure, there are millions of government abuses of individual rights every day but a SCOTOS decision which craps on the Constitution is less common, more long lasting and notable. Not to say that such crappy decisions are rare - not in the least.

    The Kelo decision was notable since it expanded eminent domain powers to an extraordinary degree by allowing the taking of private property for PRIVATE use which is clearly unconstitutional. It legitimized this already pervasive abuse of eminent domain. So, an outcry should be expected.

    In Kelo, the government further abused eminent domain power by eventually taking property at well below market value - property owners fought legal battles for several years and then were forced to sell their property at much lower values calculated at the date the government initially asserted its eminent domain power. This is an additional gross abuse which has not been addressed and was not covered well by the media.

  • ||

    Eminent Domain was IMO one of those unfortunate holdovers that had not been excised from the mind of the founders. It is one of those powers that government should not be given at any level as one of the very purposes that government is formed for is to protect property.

  • ||

    well okay, but if you believe that government at some level should be allowed to build a road, you might find that you have oversimplified the issue

  • ||

    A supreme court that would hand down a ruling like Raich has no interest in our rights whatsoever.

    -jcr

  • Some Guy||

    While I would love to see rent control go all the way to SCOTUS and be declared unconstitutional, I can't say that I'm even slightly optimistic.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    While I would love to see rent control go all the way to SCOTUS and be declared unconstitutional, I can't say that I'm even slightly optimistic.


    Why would the takings clause, or any other provision of the U.S. Constitution, prohibit rent control?

    There is no more reason to believe that rent control was unconstitutional now any more than voting restrictions on the basis of sex were unconstitutional before 1920.

  • ||

    UMM, your point being that due to a former wrong being perpetrated it is okay to do wrong now??
    While I don't see the US constitution as pertaining to what are state issues, it is wrong at any level for other people to control what is my property to favor another party. This is taking, regardless of whether it is de facto or de jure. Someone other than myself exercising control over my property, means it really is no longer MY property.

  • ||

    The best way to make sure your town doesn't have any trailer parks is to prevent the owners from making money.

  • ||

    Boy that's the great thing about living in CA, and working in Goleta. We are always making the news with some type of crazy liberal crap

  • ||

    Yet you continue to bow the knee and reside there. Care to give us a clue as to .....why???

  • Swimming In January||

    330 sunny days a year, it's a hot year if the temperature goes over 90 F even once, and it is decades between frosty mornings?

    'Course the water situation is not what it could be, but...

  • ||

    So, a view of the bay is worth half the pay eh? Then stfu about how loopy and confiscatory Calif. is and continue to pay that steep price

  • Malvolio||

    Uh, why? Our deranged government is not why California is so beautiful, it's just why our misgoverned state hasn't been abandoned completely.

    A sane government and I'd still have a view of the Bay.

  • ||

    Hypthetical:

    Would anyone deny that a law prohibiting landlords from charging rent was a taking? If not, why not?

    If a cap on rent set at $0 is a taking, would a cap on rent set at $1 not be a taking?

    If a cap on rent set at $1 is a taking, why would any cap on rent not be a taking?

  • ||

    Quit using logic when emotional gut reactions are clearly more appropriate.

  • Paul||

    Because government can now affectuate implicit takings without actually taking anything.

    For instance, the environmental law passed a few years ago here in Washington does just that: It prohibits rural King County property owners from doing anything to disturb the native fauna on 60% of their land.

    Binding your hands and feet, but leaving you on your property isn't a taking.

  • ||

    Exactly.

    Rent control is a "taking" and clearly unconstitutional.

    Taking your thinking a bit further, rent could be capped at 1 cent. How is that not a taking? How is that, in any way, constitutional?

    We just need more judges with actual brains (and the ability to use them) who will uphold the Constitution by declaring any and all rent control to be unconstitutional.

  • Malvolio||

    Taking your thinking a bit further, rent could be capped at 1 cent. How is that not a taking? How is that, in any way, constitutional?

    Cuts both ways. Isn't a smoke-detector requirement also a taking then?

  • ||

    Because owners of capital are immoral and consumers of it are virtuous. QED

    Duh.

  • Paul||

    “private property [shall not] be taken for public use purpose without just compensation.”

    Apparently Root didn't get the memo:

    It's a Living Constitution.

  • ||

    Oh no. Please, not that; not the use/purpose semantics. I'd rather sweep the bleachers at Fenway Park with a toothbrush.

  • ||

    Query whether the land owners are obliged to keep their property as a trailer park, or whether they have the option to put it to some other use? In other words, are they forced to participate in the government-regulated contract, or do they have other options?

    Analogy to a hypothetical minimum wage law where not only do you have to pay the minimum wage, but you have to hire a set number of workers.

    The old Massachusetts rent control on apartments not only capped rents, but forbid owners from withdrawing the units from the market. I see such a mandatory system as a straight-up taking. However, mere caps on prices imposed on a take-it-or-leave-it basis is not a taking, even if it is profoundly misguided.

  • ||

    Yes it is, because even if you have the option to sell the new regulation will artificially depress the sale price.

  • ||

    However, mere caps on prices imposed on a take-it-or-leave-it basis is not a taking, even if it is profoundly misguided.

    So you think that a law setting the cap at $0 would not be a taking, just because its not packaged with another law that would make it worse?

  • ||

    Exactly. A zero (or very low) price cap would be, functionally, like saying you cannot use your land as a trailer park.

    But if you could use it for other things without undue limitation, it would not amount to a taking. No more so than saying you cannot use your land for a casino or an airport or a pesticide factory.

    Limiting or prohibiting one particular use among many would not amount to a taking.

  • ||

    Joe buys a multi-unit apartment building, hoping the increase in rents will end up making a profit in X years.
    His city then institutes rent control.
    But that's not a taking because he can rip it down and put in a, what, office building?

  • ||

    Condos?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    All of those things are forceful violations of property rights. Even if there is no mandate that the property remains in the renting market, its not like its easy for the owner to just shut the whole place down, without losing a lot more money. Therefore, taking.

  • ||

    Exactly.
    The amendment says "...nor shall private property be taken..."
    It *doesn't* say 'nor shall private property valued at X be taken'
    Sorry, Danny; forcing Joe to convert it even at a cost of $1 is 'taking'.

  • ||

    I doubt you could make a blanket rule that any property regulation that causes an owner to "lose a lot more money" is always a "taking."

    There may be a conjunction of circumstances, including reasonable expectations on the part of owners, that justify applying "takings" analysis to highly intrusive regulation on certain specialized property, but it would be very hard to elevate above a case-by-case approach.

  • ||

    Danny|6.11.10 @ 6:59PM|#
    "I doubt you could make a blanket rule that any property regulation that causes an owner to "lose a lot more money" is always a "taking.""

    I don't have to. Amendment 5 does that already.

  • ||

    You can claim to have the one true meaning of the U.S. Constitution, to the exclusion of all other interpretations, but that is like claiming to have the one true meaning of the Bible, to the exclusion of all other interpretations.

    Maybe you're right about the 5th Amendment. Maybe Pat Robertson is right about the Book of Revelations. Either way, it's a matter of "received truth," and not amenable to reasoned debate.

    Plenty of people who are at least as smart and at least as educated as you are see it in a completely different way, with the utmost good faith. When you just flatly invoke the 5th Amendment, you don't advance any idea. You just shut down the debate.

  • ||

    Danny|6.11.10 @ 8:31PM|#
    "You can claim to have the one true meaning of the U.S. Constitution,..."

    Bullshit. I can claim to read, which is obviously not one of your skills.

  • ||

    Well if we don't know what the US constitution says then we very well can't bother using it anymore. Seriously, you make the most idiotic argument that assumes integrity on the part of those arguing a certain position.
    Any judicial decision between the individual and government should err on the side of the individual. This is why so many restraints, such as the taking clause, were put in the US constitution. This is why common law arose in GB, to allow judges to err on the side of liberty for the individual against government.

    BS, plenty of smart people know how to wonderfully weave and misdirect through the use of jargon, complex phrasing and other tools of sophistry, but that doesn't mean that average Joe is unable to know what is meant by the clauses of the US constitution. This, one the greater minds of the founders thought, one Thomas Jefferson.

  • Malvolio||

    Maybe Pat Robertson is right about the Book of Revelations.

    Maybe, but even if he's not completely right, I bet he knows the damn name

    (It's "Book of Revelation", singular).

  • Windtell||

    hmm, what about laws that say a person has to have and keep up a natural lawn? Is that a taking because I have to do that in your opinion? .. not a rhetorical or snide comment, I'm actually curious.

    I think RonL's first comment about a city instituting rent control after a person bought an apartment building for rent hits the nail on the head. How can that not be a taking if redoing the apartment building into something else that's profitable (which would otherwise have been profitable because of the law) is the only option for Joe?

  • RichN||

    "hmm, what about laws that say a person has to have and keep up a natural lawn? Is that a taking because I have to do that in your opinion? .. not a rhetorical or snide comment, I'm actually curious."

    Hehe...no that's not a taking but it is a good reason we should have National Lawn Care. Its not fair that my neighbor has nicer landscaping. Muawahahahahaaha!

  • ||

    This is a different issue, as in this case cementing one's front yard may bring about erosion or flooding, thus harming my property.

  • ||

    It seems to me that 100% ownership of a thing implies the right to use it in any way (even foolishly), give it away, sell it for any mutually agreeable price, or destroy it. All of this, of course, to be done without fraud, force, or any other violation of someone else's rights. *Any* restriction imposed by a third party (e.g. a government) is a taking. Maybe it's not a complete taking, so only partial compensation is required. But it's a taking, because it limits your ownership.

    CB.

  • Salizar||

    It takes some massive leap to get a ban on rent controls, or force just compensation for rent controls out of the constitution. Land use regulations are obviously not comparable to government seizure, which is the only thing that clause of the constitution applies to. One can argue rent controls are bad for liberty and what not, but there is no constitutional reason to reject them. Rent controls are not comparable to public use, and by the tenth amendment of the constitution, they should be allowed by local governments.
    The right to free property use is not a constitutional issue, ownership, yes, but constitutionally ownership does not imply free use. Using the court to promote issues that should be outside the scope of the court is activist. If one does what to change property rights, do so through legislation, not by trying to pull something out of the constitution that is not there. We all know where living constitutions lead.

  • ||

    Salizar|6.11.10 @ 6:28PM|#
    "It takes some massive leap to get a ban on rent controls, or force just compensation for rent controls out of the constitution...."

    Only if you stop reading at the 4th amendment.

  • Salizar||

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    What do rent controls have to do with either searches or seizures. Oh ya, they don't. I am not making a value judgement on the efficacy and ethics on rent controls, but there is absolutely no good constitutional argument against rent controls to be made, unless of course the constitution comes alive and devours our nation in a Godzillaesque manner.

  • ||

    Salizar|6.11.10 @ 10:09PM|#
    "...What do rent controls have to do with either searches or seizures...."

    Uh, just in case you *really* want to know, the question here involves Amendment 5. I'll bet that is somewhat beyond you ken....

  • Edwin||

    dude, what?

    That's what he adressed, and he's right. Land use regulation MAY be considered a taking if it goes so far that it is indeed EFFECTIVELY a taking. But it'd be hard to argue that rent control is always a taking. If some government put the caps low enough that you can't make your mortgage or maintenance payments, then yeah, sure. But the caps that local governments usually set? No way.

  • ||

    t it'd be hard to argue that rent control is always a taking.

    Hard to argue? Not at all. "rent control" is like any other price control: it's an unconstitutional usurpation which robs the seller.

    -jcr

  • Edwin||

    Yes at all. A taking means a complete transfer of all property rights. Property moving from one owner to another. That's how the courts have seen it, and that's what it really means. Rent Control is a restriction - a restriction on one aspect of the full disposition rights of ownership, not all of them.

  • ||

    Which is where Libertarianism usually trips over it's own dick. The age old question of zoning requirements, blight ordinances, etc. which are an anathma to the Libers and damn the movement to cult status.

  • ||

    So if you make up a fantasy where the libertarian approach doesn't work, the libertarian approach 'trips over it's own dick'?
    Naah, it means you're trying to suck your own dick and you're pissed because you can't and you're looking for someone to blame.

  • ||

    Allways a good plan. Don't answer the wank, just wank on yourself. Splain to the audience the Libertarian take on blight laws wizard, and we can hijack this thread into one you can't handle.

  • ||

    Harlot|6.11.10 @ 7:46PM|#
    "Allways a good plan. Don't answer the wank,..."

    Tell ya what, harlot, I'm tired of explaining how things work to jack-offs whose sole knowledge of libertarianism is listening to their college roomate who sorta read the first chapter of Atlas Shrugged. I'm not your econ instructor, and I don't presume to waste time educating the typical brain-dead lefty asshole, which you seem to be.
    You wanna see 'blight'? Look up 'urban renewal' dickhead.
    If you ever decide to learn something, you might consider coming back, but until then go fuck yourself with that ignorant 'can't handle' bullshit.
    And I mean this all in the nicest way :)

  • ||

    There you go shitbird, confusing blight with emminent domain, meanwhile the pud with the edged lawn is forced to burn out the shithole next door, or move and roll the dice on the next site. Emminent domain happens to few, property values reduced due to blight happen to many. Then again, if you're the wanderer in the wilderness, such as yourself, you couldn't be empathetic.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Owning property comes with the risk that it won't be worth what you want it to be, and that your neighbor next door will paint his house a color you don't like. Property values and aesthetics are not an entitlement.

  • ||

    Which is where it all falls apart.

  • ||

    Harlot|6.11.10 @ 10:07PM|#
    "Which is where it all falls apart."

    Which is where you should read something other than Scrooge McDuck comics.

  • ||

    Colonel_Angus|6.11.10 @ 9:33PM|#
    "Owning property comes with the risk that it won't be worth what you want it to be, ..."
    Like any investment, that is absolutely true

    "Property values and aesthetics are not an entitlement."
    Fine, but when someone shows up with a gun and tells you you've just lost your investment, how does that apply?

  • Salizar||

    So much male jelly and many penises around here.

  • ||

    'Zactly. When you can't illucidate a fairly simple thesis to protect the largest single investment the average voter owns, the likelihood you'll prevail with him on the tough issues ia a bit dicey.

  • ||

    Libertarianism falls apart b/c it fails your test: How am I to force my neighbours to keep THEIR lawns up to MY standard?
    I'd suggest that totalitarianism falls apart b/c it fails to fulfill your ultimate fantasy.

  • ||

    And you'd prefer to simply move on down the road when your neighbor jacks cars up and stores used tires?? And where would/could you move/build, to insulate from such? Gated communities? Ahhh, then you've relegated those that cannot afford such (and they would be legion) to the shitholes of another's pleasure. It's when you have dicksucking idealogues like little Ronnie here, castrated from regulating anything and fearful of any regulation real or imagined, that you fall flat with the electorate...which you have...and will.

  • ||

    Harlot|6.12.10 @ 12:09AM|#
    "And you'd prefer to simply move on down the road when your neighbor jacks cars up and stores used tires??..."

    Gee, sorta missed this brain-dead strawman. But then, no great loss; assholes *always* make up stories, since they have no evidence.

  • ||

    Harlot|6.11.10 @ 11:15PM|#
    "'Zactly. When you can't illucidate a fairly simple thesis to protect the largest single investment the average voter owns, the likelihood you'll prevail with him on the tough issues ia a bit dicey."
    Oh, my! Asshole seems to think that 'defending' against one taking is required to 'defend' against another!
    Why, then asshole can claim any taking asshole wants. Right. asshole?
    BTW, please define "blight", and do so with enough specificity that a law could be written around it. Oh, and please, asshole, include the cost/benefit ratio and (pace Bastiat) what the hidden costs are. And we'd also like to hear the history of 'blight abatement', including all the above, asshole.
    You are an ignoramus spouting nothing other than 'everybody knows' bullshit and you're stupid enough to not know it.

  • ||

    And there you have it friends and neighbors. I rest my case.

  • ||

    Well you should. Some 'case'....
    I see you didn't bother to defend your brain-dead claims that 'blight' is either something that can be defined or needs activity from brain-deads like you.
    Go away and read something.

  • ||

    Blight in Chevy Chase, Md. may be quite different than blight in, say, the shithole you live in. Which is why community standards holds sway, to your aggravation.

  • ||

    IOWs, you don't have a clue. Exactly; go away.

  • ||

    S'matter Ronnie, no community standards in you trailer park?

  • ||

    tenletters|6.12.10 @ 12:43AM|#
    "S'matter Ronnie, no community standards in you trailer park?"
    S'matter, tenletters, no brains between your ears, fucktard?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Blight is meaningless. If I want to store aluminum canoes in the backyard that I own, that is my right. Fuck your collecivist community standards and your property values.

  • ||

    Try making that work at the ballot box Cornhole.

  • Edwin||

    Harlot, read up on Houston a little bit. Not only do they have no zoning, but the residents have repeatedly voted against it.

    Private covenants/deed-restrictions, along with a few basic traffic- and nuisance- based regulations, can easily take the place of zoning, but do better because the private restrictions don't have to be "reasonable", and there's plenty of room left for development in the non-deed-restricted lands to allow plenty of affordable housing. Furthermore no silly separation of uses, which forces urban sprawl by forcing all the shopping centers and businesses to be in one place. (Not that Houston doesn't have urban sprawl - they actually encourage it with generous road requirements for the sake of the oil industry there. Though per-person there probably is less sprawl than other more recently-built cities)

  • ||

    It's disingenuous to say that Houston has no zoning without mentioning that it does have strict, minimum parking regulations, strict minimum lot size regulations, and wide streets and long blocks. Though it might not have traditional single-use zoning regulations, it does have a lot of strictures that limit density and discourage walkability and the feasibility of mass transit.
    Central Houston is a mess of adult entertainment shops juxtaposed to the swank homes and handful of commercialized villages filled with chain stores. If you step outside the highland villages or rice villages of the city, you're stuck with dilapated buildings. Good luck living even in the wealthiest of neighborhoods - from West U to med center to Galleria - without having crack or sex thrust onto you. In "central houston," you'll see neighborhoods without homeowners associations so the houses have disturbing businesses running out of them. The best located neighborhoods are unsafe and usually abutting some cheap 2 story apartment complex. There is no great place to live in Houston even if you have $1.5 mm to spend aside from the occasional trendy townhouse. I've been to Houston.
    But then, while I may reek of arrogance and intolerance it's still my money I'm investing.

  • ||

    harlot|6.12.10 @ 1:00PM|#

    It's disingenuous to say that Houston has no zoning without mentioning that it does have strict, minimum parking regulations, strict minimum lot size regulations, and wide streets and long blocks."
    Cites? Or are you just repeating what you read on daily koz?

    Though it might not have traditional single-use zoning regulations, it does have a lot of strictures that limit density and discourage walkability and the feasibility of mass transit."
    Cite? or ditto...

    "Central Houston is a mess of adult entertainment shops juxtaposed to the swank homes and handful of commercialized villages filled with chain stores. "
    Oh, the HORROR!

  • Edwin||

    And yet a few million people continue to live there, and repeatedly vote against zoning... huh.

  • ||

    Harlot|6.12.10 @ 12:29AM|#
    "Try making that work at the ballot box Cornhole."

    So, our sleaze asshole says 'well, we'll pull a gun on you if you do!'
    Stalin would be proud.

  • ||

    I must say Col., I'll not be making many property investments in your town. Aside from canoe storage sites that is.

  • Edwin||

    Blight issues and eminent domain aside:

    you know, he's right. I don't like land use control any more than any other libertarian. But you have to let people know that they won't be fucked over when they buy a house. Property values aside, your everyday life could be severely affected if you truly let anybody build absolutely anything anywhere. Is there no libertarian argument for externality regulation of some kind*? If a trash incineration facility is built right next to your house, condo, apartment, etc., and every day you have to constantly put up with the most horrendous odor, are you going to tell me I'm not receiving damage? How about if you can't sleep because some industrial facility or dance club is too damn loud next to you, and they built it AFTER you bought/rented your place?

    *this is all in the absence of first-come-first-serve in uses, which is how it would otherwise be handled. That is, if some guy builds a pig farm out in the middle of nowhere, you can't expect it not to be smelly near his place. But if you were there first, and there were no uses with externalities like that in the area, then he couldn't just come in and build that god-awfully smelly thing. This wouldn't really work in most modern towns/cities because they're already so developed (people are already living here and there and all over the place even in a small town).

  • ||

    Stop it, your making sense here.

    Next, you'll commence demanding building codes to protect you from buying a structure that turns out to be good enough on the outside, but flawed, maybe even dangerous on the inside, whereupon your only libertarian choice is to attempt to foist it on someone else with a quick sale. Damn regulations anyway.

  • ||

    harlot|6.12.10 @ 12:45PM|#
    "Stop it, your making sense here."

    How in hell would you know?

  • ||

    Edwin|6.12.10 @ 12:12PM|#
    "Blight issues and eminent domain aside:
    you know, he's right. I don't like land use control any more than any other libertarian. But you have to let people know that they won't be fucked over when they buy a house..."
    You bet brain-dead! Why the government should guarantee *any* of your expenses, right?
    When you're dumb enough to have bought a Yugo (and I'll bet your did!), why the government should make sure you get your money back!
    Join the other fucktard in ignorance.

  • ||

    Have you never heard of nuisance laws?

  • ||

    You ever heard of zoning?

  • ||

    harlot|6.12.10 @ 7:40PM|#
    "You ever heard of zoning?"
    You ever heard of the 5th amendment?

  • ||

    Is there no libertarian argument for externality regulation of some kind*?

    There's a civil tort called "nuisance". If your enjoyment of your property is affected by something your neighbor is doing, then sue him. There's a world of difference between the government exercising prior restraint, and a person actually affected suing for redress.

    -jcr

  • Southerner||

    My house in a white neighborhood is worth $180k; in a black one, $120k. Can I sue a black guy if he moves in next to me?

  • ||

    tenletters|6.12.10 @ 12:32AM|#
    "I must say Col., I'll not be making many property investments in your town. Aside from canoe storage sites that is."

    Hey, fucktard, I got several sticks of chewing gum you can 'invest' in. For a brain-dead, that's probably the limit of your capital.

  • Salizar||

    This is not an issue with Libertarianism, this is an issue with libertarians abusing the constitution to support their idealogical beliefs.

  • ||

    No, this is an issue of brain-deads incapable of reading.
    That would mean you.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Price gouging laws suck too. The government is not capable of defining "gouging".

  • ||

    Since the case is the 9th Circuit I'm going to bet they'll favor the statist position.

  • Simon Spero||

    Epstein is of course the classic work on the subject, but the best and most up to date treatise is Eagle (2009). Relive Lucas v. SCCC - when Scalia was still Scalia.

    Eagle, Steven J. (2009). Regulatory takings. 4th ed. New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis Matthew Bender. isbn: 9781422476543 1422476545.

  • Wegie||

    The only thing the government does , is take.

  • ||

    Harlot, when you have a bum itch, do you demand the government come over and wipe it? I wouldn't trust the evil TP manufacturers to sell a quality product. Some might put too much wood pulp in the paper. That could cause micro-tears in senitive regions, which could lead to bleeding on the brain, which could severly damage your health.
    So let's march for safer TP.
    "Whadda we want!"
    "Safer Toilet Paper!"
    "Who's Gonna Give it To Us?"
    "Government!"

  • ||

    Ahhh, in the grove with Scotty Tissue!

    Cost of 8 pack of Scotty...$2.10

    Cost of 3 bdrm ranch, paved drive, landscaped front and back, pool, 3 car garage, on the cul de sac...$750,000.

    Ok, after the crash....$520,000.

    Ok, after you or Ronnie hit the lotto, pull next door, hook up your mother-in-law to the 15 year old motor home parked on the carport, decide wildflower lawns are de rigueur, jack up your brats' hemi on blocks (the better to tune her at night), stake your coon dog pack to a barrel out back, and commence salvaging used mobile homes on the side yard and selling tacos from the garage.....uh...roughly zilch.

    Where do I and the other 50 voters on the one way avenue go to get whole...uh...you perhaps?? Nonsense, shitbirds such as yourself are generally at the low end of the economic range which explains the propensity to live in squalor.

    Better yet, at the next election, do we pull the lever for the Libors??

    Decisions, decisions. In the real world I mean. Or is simply an unworkable ideology more than enough for you?

  • whackystuff||

    3-4000 exception in 1913
    the 3000 indexed in regard to the CPI(consumer price index) 55,000 dollars.
    Indexed in regard to gold, the amount to exempt someone is almost 250,000.

  • ||

    harlot|6.12.10 @ 7:37PM|#
    "Ahhh, in the grove with Scotty Tissue!
    Cost of 8 pack of Scotty...$2.10
    Cost of 3 bdrm ranch, paved drive, landscaped front and back, pool, 3 car garage, on the cul de sac...$750,000."

    Ah, in the groove with a brain-dead who figures 'if we only take a little...'
    So you still have no clue and you're cluically-challenged to the point that you don't *know* you don't have a clue...

  • ||

    harlot|6.12.10 @ 7:37PM|#
    "In the real world I mean. Or is simply an unworkable ideology more than enough for you?"
    Uh, dipshit, you've yet to show that you're doing other than begging the question.
    You make the claims that the zoning and supposed 'blight' regs are required; prove it. Or admit you're a brain-dead ignoramus.
    Either one is just fine by me.

  • ||

    Your mother allow you up at this hour?

    Nothing is required, good sense will simply prevail and gravitate where the protection is.
    Most that have sense have money, this is why you have none. City planners know this, so do city managers, often even city council members learn it. Just the dopes such as yourself never do.
    The more the investment, the more the investor will insist on protection, lest he be at the mercy of, well, of puds such as yourself. The smart guy, the money guy, will attempt to insulate himself from such as you, and will require an enforceable caveat before he drops his cash.
    Hence, we could have dopes, like you, living in the downriver 'burbs with the dirt roads, tire walls, and snot nosed kids. Or, successful people, like, uh, me, living in the zoned community, far from your fleas.
    Next lesson will be, which of the above vote, campaign, and (most importantly) contribute to those who decide these thorny issues.

  • ||

    harlot|6.12.10 @ 10:32PM|#
    "Your mother allow you up at this hour?"
    Oh, how..............
    Stupid.

    "Next lesson will be, which of the above vote, campaign, and (most importantly) contribute to those who decide these thorny issues."
    Still an absolute ignoramus concerning the issues involved? I asked you to study before you returned; you didn't.
    I see you've yet to define 'blight'; further you've yet to establish why you're 'taste' requires anything like 'zoning'.
    Sorry; the random statements of an ignoramus don't constitute anything worthy of consideration.

  • ||

    harlot|6.12.10 @ 10:32PM|#
    "Or, successful people, like, uh, me,"

    Right.

  • christian louboutin||

    Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.

  • ||

    I too have come late and had to catch up. Pretty entertaining. At the risk of his bile however, Ron L hasn't presented a cogent argument for me to immediately oppose either zoning or building code restrictions. I'm not sure I want to live in his world.

  • ||

    The entire concept of “eminent domain” is corrupt. That it resides in the constitution is proof that the constitution is impotent protecting individual rights.

    What exactly is a “public purpose” beyond some bullshit construct? If the owner of the capital can have his capital taken from him by the politically connected AGAINST HIS WILL, the rest is just dotting and crossing and the constitution enshrines collectivism over property rights. And it does

  • ||

    Given your argument, there could have never been an interstate highway system, flood control canals, additional lanes on streets or roadways, hydroelectric dams, etc. all provided by government confiscation. The rub is the "duly compensated" issue.

  • whackystuff||

    Who are you?

  • whackystuff||

    If I stick my nose in your buisness I own you, If I withold from you are you threatened? I think you are a failure.

  • ||

    Owning property comes with the risk that it won't be worth what you want it to be, and that your neighbor next door will paint his house a color you don't like. Property values and aesthetics are not an entitlement.

    Thread winning comment.

  • christian louboutin||

    Aishika Chakraborty spends Christian Louboutin Pumps in the enchanting environs of Santiniketan and says its christian louboutin remain undiminished 'Besides the winter fair and spring festival, there is nothing much to see there. Palash and simul trees have just shed their blooms, and the monsoon cloud is nowhere near the christian louboutin sale. Blazing winds will greet you at Jhapater Dhal as the terrain onwards turns parched christian shoes and arid.'

  • D.Brooks||

    CMOS Digital sale The 14mp Sony Alpha 350 might be a good value oriented competitor (when Sony offers bundles), but the IQ of the Canon's CMOS sensor is probably better in most moderate to low light conditions. I think you'll be seeing something soon to replace this model.

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • Jordan Shoes||

    so good.

  • mbt imara||

    good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement