![]() ![]() For example, in his dissent in San Diego Gas and Elec. But sometimes the claim that a state has exercised its police power leaves open the compensation question, especially when exercise of the police power is justified by appeal to the general welfare. Sometimes, if an act of government is held to be an exercise of the police power, compensation is ipso facto denied. ![]() It is argued that this principle is implicit in many of the Court's rulings on regulatory takings.ġ3 Usage of the term “police power” is inconsistent in this context. It is based on the proposition that the goods provided by regulatory takings are typically public goods, and on a principle of fairness, which holds that compensation should be paid when those who benefit from a regulatory taking pay virtually nothing and those who pay receive hardly any benefit. The main argument concludes that compensation should be paid. The paper develops a position on the general question of compensation for regulatory takings and applies it to the ESA. The question this paper addresses is whether these restrictions require compensation. These restrictions imposed by the ESA are part of a larger controversy about the reach of the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment, which says that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) can impose significant limitations on what landowners may do with their property, especially as it pertains to development. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |