The endangered species act, regulatory takings, and public goods

Social Philosophy and Policy 26 (2):353-377 (2009)

Abstract
The Endangered Species Act can impose significant limitations on what landowners may do with their property, especially as it pertains to development. 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 question this paper addresses is whether these restrictions require compensation. The paper develops a position on the general question of compensation for regulatory takings and applies it to the ESA. The main argument concludes that compensation should be paid. 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. It is argued that this principle is implicit in many of the Court's rulings on regulatory takings
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S026505250909027X
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 46,355
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-06-25

Total views
49 ( #180,995 of 2,286,118 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #571,926 of 2,286,118 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature