Somewhat at Sea: Public Use and Third-Party Transfer Limits in Two US States

Rethinking Expropriation Law I: Rethinking Public Interest in Expropriation (Björn Hoops et al. eds., Eleven Int’l Publ’g 2016, Forthcoming

35 Pages Posted: 5 Nov 2015 Last revised: 11 Nov 2015

See all articles by John A. Lovett

John A. Lovett

Louisiana State University, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Students

Date Written: November 3, 2015

Abstract

This article analyzes how two states, Michigan and Louisiana, have defined the scope of a permissible public use for expropriation and imposed constitutional, statutory and judicial limits on state and local governmental power to expropriate private property and transfer it to other private parties and other public actors. Both states have played prominent roles in debates over the propriety of economic development takings in the last several decades.

In Michigan, the highest court famously permitted such takings in Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit before reversing itself in County of Wayne v Hathcock. After Kelo v. City of New London, Michigan moved to impose strict constitutional prohibitions on economic development takings and strengthened compensation rights for residential property owners, residential tenants and other parties affected by expropriation. The first part of this paper traces that history and highlights the crucial role played by the constitutional framework developed by Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas M. Cooley in several late 19th century decisions and in his well-known treatise on constitutional law.

Louisiana enacted strict constitutional prohibitions on economic development takings and third-party transfers in reaction to Kelo. After Hurricane Katrina, however, Louisiana struggled to modify those strict limits as it became clear that the demands of post-disaster community revitalization would require a more flexible approach to blight expropriation and subsequent thirty-party transfers. Moreover, at least one state court decision threatens to create a significant loophole in Louisiana’s strict constitutional limits on third-party transfers by approving an expropriating entity’s creative, but formalistic disguise of such transfers in quasi-feudal property forms.

The article demonstrates that in states in which expropriation plays a crucial role responding to economic crises and natural disasters, courts and legislatures’ control over expropriation can reveal significant internal contradiction even as courts and legislatures display skepticism regarding the propriety of post-expropriation third-party transfers. Public use restrictions, third-party transfer prohibitions and compensation rules can prove to be highly malleable legal concepts.

Keywords: expropriation, takings, Michigan law, Louisiana Law, Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit, County of Wayne v Hathcock, Kelo v. City of New London

Suggested Citation

Lovett, John A., Somewhat at Sea: Public Use and Third-Party Transfer Limits in Two US States (November 3, 2015). Rethinking Expropriation Law I: Rethinking Public Interest in Expropriation (Björn Hoops et al. eds., Eleven Int’l Publ’g 2016, Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2685860

John A. Lovett (Contact Author)

Louisiana State University, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Students ( email )

Baton Rouge, LA
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
52
Abstract Views
589
Rank
687,410
PlumX Metrics