New information added on January 12, 2007

November 2004 Oregon Measure 37 Takings compensation and relief from land use regulation - Enacted by Oregon’s voters in a statewide referendum on November 2, 2004 See Also Essential Books & Publications Regulatory Overkill — It’s Time to Reform land Use Regulations - By Bill Moshofsky, Oregonians in Action (Trafford, 2004) Taking away the use of private land to provide public benefits without paying for it — that’s Grand Larceny and Petty Theft! All income from the book is going to Oregonians in Action. Published by Trafford Publishing 6E-Government Street Victoria, B.C. V8T 4P4 Canada Telephone 1-800-232-4444 Fax 250-383-6804 e-mail: orders@trafford.com Richard A. Epstein, Takings—Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985) Bernard H. Siegan, Property and Freedom—The Constitution, The Courts, and Land-Use Regulation (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick 1997) Mark L. Pollot, Grand Theft and Petit Larceny - Property Rights in America (Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy 1993) Begins with philosophical origins and early debate over the protection of property rights, and ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, contrasted with modern regulatory takings. Publication Order Form

Update “Oregon Supreme Court Upholds Regulatory Takings Compensation Law” - Carol W. LaGrasse, PRFA Update, February 21, 2006 In-Depth Information   “U.S. Private Property Rights Under International Assault” - By Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq., Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development, Presented at the Tenth Annual National Conference on Private Property Rights, Albany, New York, October 14, 2006, sponsored by the Property Rights Foundation of America Left-leaning foreign governments, activists and academics are waging a campaign against the American free market, private property, and science and economics-based regulatory systems. The non-scientific Precautionary Principle, which has assumed regulatory status in Europe, means banning whole classes of products, substances and activities from entering the marketplace if it is merely possible, absent any scientific risk analysis, that they or the processes used for their manufacture might cause uncertain health or environmental harm sometime in the future. “Invasive Species—Regulation by Fraud”-By Fred V. Grau, Jr., President Grasslyn, Inc., Tenth Annual National Conference on Private Property Rights (PRFA, Albany, N.Y., October 14, 2006) Invasive species rules are already having negative impact on ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and boaters. “White listing” in accord with the precautionary principle requires that you have to prove that a species doesn’t cause harm before you can trade in it. The concept of “biological pollution” is starting to bring U.S. EPA jurisdiction over aquatic invasive species. Invasive species laws are a federal funding mechanism to The Nature Conservancy. “Regulatory Taking Compensation—The Successful Oregon Measure 37 Referendum” - By Bill Moshofsky, President, Oregonians in Action, Tigard, Oregon; Speech to the Ninth Annual Conference on Private Property Rights (PRFA, Albany, N. Y. October 22, 2005) The Oregon Measure 37 referendum created a solution to the “regulatory overkill” that besets Oregon’s property owners, under arguably the strictest land use planning regulations in the country, excessive wetlands, endangered species and forest practice regulation. Oregonians in Action is still fighting against government’s attempt to nullify the law. “PRFA Supports Property Owners at U.S. Supreme Court Where Airport Navigational Use Made Land Unusable” - By Carol W. LaGrasse, (PRFA, November 2004) The Property Rights Foundation of America filed a “friend of the court” (amicus curiae) brief in support of John and William Breneman, who are petitioning the United States Supreme Court to hear their appeal of their “takings” claim against the Federal Aviation Administration for declaring their property unusable “navigable airspace” as a result of Tanner Hiller Airport in Massachusetts illegally expanding its runway. “Oregon Voters Approve Measure to Pay for Regulatory Takings” - By Carol W. LaGrasse (PRFA, November 2004) In a victory for private property rights, “takings” compensation received 60% of the vote in an Oregon referendum. The law, passed in a traditionally liberal state, could start a national movement. “A Voice for Forest Landowners in Washington—Protecting Productive Private Property” - By Scott Jones, Executive Vice President, Forest Landowners Association, Atlanta, Ga.; Speech to the Eighth Annual Conference on Private Property Rights (PRFA, Albany, N. Y. October 23, 2004) By partnering with organizations like the Forest Landowners Association, we can educate Congress about private property rights. Working together, we stopped regulations like TDML, which would have hurt forest management. We can eliminate the “death tax” and make incremental changes to the Endangered Species Act. “Inverse Condemnation—The Rationale for Compensation for Regulatory Takings” - By Henry St. John FitzGerald, Attorney at Law, Arlington, Virginia; Speech to the Eighth Annual Conference on Private Property Rights (PRFA, Albany, N. Y. October 23, 2004) The Constitution is the biggest bulwark to protect our rights, including private property rights. Government keeps trying to expand its power, and important cases hold its power in check. The cases protecting property owners from regulatory takings began in 1922 with Pennsylvania Coal. “Inverse condemnation” is when so many land rights have been taken away that a Fifth Amendment Taking occurs. “Private Property Rights of Farmers: Updates in Takings and Related Case Law” - By Jeff Williams and Leah Hurtgen, New York State Farm Bureau (Sixth Annual Conference on Private Property Rights, PRFA - November 16, 2002) A broad overview of significant recent cased that have occurred in New York State and in other parts of this country, which affect agriculture and other land-intensive business such as logging and will touch individual property owners: Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (122 S. Ct. 1465 (2002); the victorious Palazzolo v. Rhode Island and related historic cases;Town of Lysander v. Hafner (New York State Court of Appeals, October 18, 2001); the disappointing Long Island Pine Barrens v. Town of Riverhead;the California case Pronsolino v. EPA; and another Ninth Circuit case Borden Ranch v. Army Corps of Engineers. “Supreme Court Rejects ‘Categorical’ Compensation for Temporary Taking” — By Carol W. LaGrasse (PRFA, April 27, 2002) Justice Stevens writes that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency took only a “temporal slice” of the property interest by imposing lengthy building moratoria. No compensation to landowners is required. The troublesome ruling broadly affirmed the justice of central planning, but left open room for “ad hoc” appeals for compensation for temporary takings. “A Short Zoning Glossary—Key Rulings” - from Positions on Property, Vol. 3, No. 2, May 1996 “Model State Statute or State Constitutional Amendment Concerning Compensation for Takings of Private Property” - prepared by Roger Pilon, Ph. D., J. D., Senior Fellow and Director of Cato Institute, Center for Constitutional Studies, from Proceedings of the First Annual N.Y. Conf. on Private Property Rights (PRFA, 1995) “An Overview of National Zoning and Property Rights” - Robert J. Smith, Senior Environmental Scholar, Competitive Enterprise Institute, from Proceedings of the First Annual N. Y. Conf. on Private Property Rights (PRFA, 1995) “The Arizona Property Rights Referendum” - Presented by Tom Rawles, Chairman, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Phoenix, Arizona, Reprinted from Proceedings of the First Annual New York Conference on Private Property Rights (PRFA, 1995) “Takings” implications of proposed governmental actions shall be assessed by the office of the Attorney General and permit requirements shall minimize restrictions on private property. “State Legislation to Protect Private Property Owners” - By W. Christopher Doss, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Reprinted from Proceedings of the First Annual Conference on Private Property Rights (PRFA, 1995) Large corporations and developers are delighted with regulation, because that helps cut down on competition. Chris Doss’s important ideas include the first mention of “informed consent for conservation easements” and “mandated review property taxes” after regulation decreases property value.

Back to:

© 2007 Property Rights Foundation of America, Inc.
All rights reserved. This material may not be broadcast, published, rewritten or redistributed without written permission.