Nathan Newman wrote:
>For example, the same folks pushing this absolutist defense against eminent
>domain also just won a court decision upholding a law banning "regulatory
>takings" of land property in Oregon. The same rhetoric of defending small
>property owners is used to attack all sorts of regulations in the same
>property rights rhetoric.
-I know all about this. I've been following Ron Arnold's work for the -last 10 years. I can tell shit from shinola.
And yet the logic of the horrors of oppressing poor landowners and stealing property from them without even compensating them seems just as compelling. In fact, they work together since with both kinds of laws in place -- bans on eminent domain and requiring regulatory takings compensation -- you can't regulate to achieve smart growth development and you can't use eminent domain.
The Institute for Justice, which you keep quoting, is in tight coordination with the Oregon-style regulatory takings movement, because they know the more tools of land management they eliminate for local governments, the more uncontested sprawl and high-profit development they can promote.
-- Nathan Newman