Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=894378
 
 

Citations (7)



 
 

Footnotes (279)



 


 



Big Differences for Small Governments: Local Governments and the Takings Clause


Christopher Serkin


Vanderbilt Law School


New York University Law Review, 2006
Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 55

Abstract:     
This Article argues that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause should apply differently to local governments than to higher levels of government. The Takings Clause is at the heart an increasingly contentious property rights debate. On one side are property-rights advocates who argue for expanding government liability for takings of private property. On the other are proponents of deference to government regulation. More often than not, the terms of the debate have focused on a traditional economic account of the Takings Clause. Property-rights advocates argue that expanding the compensation requirement is necessary to force the government to internalize the costs of its actions, ensuring that regulations will occur only where benefits exceed costs. Others, however, argue that governments respond to political and not monetary costs so that a compensation requirement will not influence government decision-making in any predictable way. Public choice theorists, in particular, argue that regulations are more likely to result from special interest group rent-seeking, while costs are passed on to taxpayers generally. Where the public choice theory critique applies, compensation will not serve as a meaningful check on regulatory incentives.

This Article argues that the strength of the public choice critique rises and falls with the level of government. Local governments are largely majoritarian and specifically responsive to local homeowners. Because local governments also receive most of their revenue from local property taxes, forcing local governments to compensate under the Takings Clause will, in fact, force them to internalize the costs of their actions. However, local governments' regulatory incentives are subject to their own specific distortions. Local governments are risk averse so that the prospect of a large takings judgment may over-deter them from acting. Local government regulations also tend to impose significant positive and negative externalities on neighboring communities. This Article therefore proposes (1) ratcheting down compensation for takings by local governments to account for their risk aversion, and (2) creating a form of inter-governmental liability to allow local governments to capture the positive externalities of their actions and force them to pay for the negative externalities.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 76

Keywords: Takings, Property, Local Government, Fifth Amendment

JEL Classification: K12, K23

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: March 31, 2006  

Suggested Citation

Serkin, Christopher, Big Differences for Small Governments: Local Governments and the Takings Clause. New York University Law Review, 2006; Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 55. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=894378

Contact Information

Christopher Serkin (Contact Author)
Vanderbilt Law School ( email )
131 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37203
United States
615-343-6131 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,438
Downloads: 164
Download Rank: 105,606
Citations:  7
Footnotes:  279

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.281 seconds