Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Carol Rose (1996)
Property as the Keystone RightNotre Dame Law Review, 71
R. Klosterman (1978)
Foundations for Normative PlanningJournal of The American Planning Association, 44
K. Gray, S. Gray (2009)
THE IDEA OF PROPERTY IN LAND.RTF
(1978)
Specific performance of contracts for the sale of land purchased for resale or investment
H. Hart (1955)
Are There Any Natural RightsThe Philosophical Review, 64
P. Beves (1977)
EQUALITYThe Lancet, 310
Seng Ti (2019)
Politics and policy: Chinese money and its impact on the regulation of residential property in the westThe Conveyancer and Property Lawyer, 83
L. Lye (2010)
Land Law and the Environment: Re-examining the Concept of Ownership and Forging New Rights and Obligations in a Changed WorldSingapore Academy of Law Journal, 22
R. Chambers (2005)
The Importance of Specific Performance
S. Stein, T. Harper (2005)
Rawls’s ‘Justice as Fairness’: A Moral Basis for Contemporary Planning TheoryPlanning Theory, 4
Kenneth Winston (1974)
On Treating Like Cases AlikeCalifornia Law Review, 62
Eric Claeys (2018)
Use and the Function of Property
W. Fischel, P. Shapiro (1989)
A constitutional choice model of compensation for takingsInternational Review of Law and Economics, 9
Lucy Larcom (1911)
OwnershipJournal of Education, 74
Safina Ali (2011)
JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS, POLITICAL NOT METAPHYSICAL, 7
Sarah Hamill (2014)
Common Law Property Theory and Jurisprudence in CanadaDevelopment Economics: Macroeconomic Issues in Developing Economies eJournal
Frank Michelman (1967)
Property, Utility, and Fairness: Comments on the Ethical Foundations of "Just Compensation" LawHarvard Law Review, 80
Thomas Miceli, K. Segerson
Department of Economics Working Paper Series A Bargaining Model of Holdouts and Takings
Edward Ti (2021)
Of Landlords and Tenants: Property in the Midst of a PandemicStatute Law Review
(1978)
Studies in land economy
J. Forester (2006)
Making Participation Work When Interests Conflict: Moving from Facilitating Dialogue and Moderating Debate to Mediating NegotiationsJournal of the American Planning Association, 72
Queen’s Law Journal, 40
Edward Ti (2018)
Compensating Regulation of Land: UK and Singapore ComparedAsian Law eJournal
T. Allen (1993)
Commonwealth Constitutions and the Right not to be Deprived of PropertyInternational and Comparative Law Quarterly, 42
American Law and Economics Review, 9
Henry Smith (2012)
Property as the Law of ThingsNew Institutional Economics eJournal
G. Calabresi, 김대근, A. Melamed (1972)
Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral
Laura Underkuffler (2016)
A Theoretical Approach: The Lens of Progressive Property
Benjamin O'Glasser (2007)
Constitutional, Political, and Philosophical Struggle: Measure 37 and the Oregon Urban Growth Boundary ControversyUniversity of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 9
John Mikhail (2010)
Rawls' Concept of Reflective Equilibrium and its Original Function in 'A Theory of Justice', 3
S. McKay, M. Murray, S. MacIntyre (2012)
Justice as Fairness in Planning Policy-MakingInternational Planning Studies, 17
Harvard Law Review, 125
(2012)
Understanding the constructive trust between vendor and purchaser
Harvard Law Review, 85
The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 63
(1994)
Equitable property
The purpose of this paper is to articulate the inherent unfairness in compensation outcomes between landowners whose land is physically taken versus those whose land is regulated. Using Rawlsian theory as the normative standard of “fairness as justice”, the paper argues that both physical and regulatory takings should be compensated.Design/methodology/approachMost jurisdictions invariably provide market price compensation when land is physically acquired. When land is not physically taken but merely subject to regulation, however, there is no corresponding need to compensate, even where the economic loss suffered by the landowner is the same. Adopting Rawlsian theory, this paper explains why justice and fairness in land use planning require both physical takings and regulatory takings to be equally compensable.FindingsApplying Rawlsian theory to compare compensable compulsory purchase with non-compensable regulatory takings of land show that the latter is not compatible with an ethical planning praxis.Originality/valueWhile Rawlsian theory has been applied in urban planning research before, this would be its first application in highlighting the apparent justice paradox which now distinguishes a physical and regulatory taking of land.
Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law – Emerald Publishing
Published: Oct 27, 2022
Keywords: Planning law; John Rawls; Just compensation; Land regulation; Planning theory; Regulatory takings
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.