Comments on: Private Property vs. Public Trust

By: Wigglesworth

Wigglesworth — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:06:40 +0000

Ken, a “right” does not extend everywhere you go. I have the right to have sex on my private property. I do not, however, enjoy the same right on the public sidewalk or down at the local pub.

I don’t really see all the hubbub about why smoking should be treated any differently.

By: NotYourDaddy

NotYourDaddy — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:52:20 +0000

Ken, in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the state is only required to provide just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for regulatory takings when the regulations deprive the owner of “all economically beneficial uses of the property." So, under this ruling, a smoking ban would not qualify for compnsatory damages. See Without Just Compensation for more details. It is one of the worst rulings, IMHO, the Supreme Court has ever handed down.

By: Ken123

Ken123 — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:04:08 +0000

When a municipality codifies a smoking ban on private property it constitutes a partial taking resulting in loss of business to the owner. Is this regulatory taking compensatable?

By: NotYourDaddy

NotYourDaddy — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:33:42 +0000

I believe the government, as owner, does have the right to lease the property. Presumably, the income from the lease is used for the “public good.” However, they cannot sell the property. At least that’s my understanding of the law.

By: Manny Villegas

Manny Villegas — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:06:54 +0000

In the great State of Texas, new toll roads are being constructed to alleviate traffic congestion which is subsidized by taxpayer monies.

Citing – U.S. Supreme Court, Shively v. Bowlby (1894) “…and the dominion thereof, jus publicum, is vested in him, as the representative of the nation and for the public benefit.”

Under the rule of law “Jus publicum ownership is always vested in the state, never in a private party.”

Does the State violate this federal interpretation whenever it leases the toll roads collection to an outside private corporation while the citizen ponders whether they just go on without any change to pay for the luxury of a shorter route versus pondering whether they will face a misdemeanor charge of theft of services?

By: Ken Garrett

Ken Garrett — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:00:25 +0000

Doesn’t smoking bans on restaurants,bowling centers, pool halls located on private property constitute a taking on the part of cities and states?

By: The Politics and Money Carnival - Edition 8

The Politics and Money Carnival - Edition 8 — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:01:29 +0000

[...] presents Private Property vs. Public Trust posted at Government is not your [...]

By: Without Just Compensation « Government is Not Your Daddy

Without Just Compensation « Government is Not Your Daddy — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:55:01 +0000

[...] of these background principles is the “public trust,” which we discussed at length in Private Property vs. Public Trust. Between the categorical rule and the blanket exemption for background principles of state property [...]

By: Max

Max — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:50:59 +0000

An excellent overview of the situation; sections are still debated today, particularly in regard to fishing rights (for example, the area along the lower Nehalem river at the confluence of the Salmonberry river). As well, the 1994 Dolan v. Tigard case further limited the state’s reach in regard to the taking of private property for public recreational use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolan_v._City_of_Tigard

By: NotYourDaddy

NotYourDaddy — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:01:14 +0000

Thanks for asking, OregonGuy. In my next post, I’m going to go into the loopholes established by the Supreme Court to exempt states from the requirement for just compensation for regulatory takings. Stay tuned…