Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revitalizing Land Use Law: The Burdens-Benefits Ratio Principle

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
One Hundred Years of Zoning and the Future of Cities

Abstract

As a way of celebrating its centenary, I sketch out a vision of how to revitalize land use and zoning law. Such a vision is called for not merely because of the marking of 100 years of zoning. Due to the immense impact land use laws have on human lives and their surroundings, it is crucial to regenerate the land use law system and to ground it within an ethical foundation. A land use law system should be based on an ethical commitment to fairness and sustainability. It should be guided by principles of democracy and transparency; by norms of accessibility, diversity, and density; and by a requirement to preserve a fair ratio between the distribution of burdens and the allocation of benefits. This chapter’s focus is on the latter principle, which is demonstrated by two examples: on how to substantiate development agreements, and on how to analyze the distributive effect of eminent domain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Such a requirement was discussed in Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 911 P.2d 429, 450–51 (Cal. S.C. 1996). The California Supreme Court held that the City’s imposition of a “fee in lieu of art” to support art in public places to be a requirement that is akin to traditional land-use regulations. In CC [HP] (TA) 1115/96 the Constructors and Builders Association in Tel Aviv Yafo v. The Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality (4.5.1997) (Isr.), an Israeli District Court denied the local government’s directive according to which the planning board will not grant approval for public or large-scale residential projects unless artistic elements valued at the equivalent of 1 per cent of the total value of construction are provided, as a requirement that the local municipality was not authorized to pose.

  2. 2.

    Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013).

  3. 3.

    CA 7368/06 Dirot Yokra, Inc. v. The Mayor of the Municipality of Yavne (27.6.2011) (Isr.).

  4. 4.

    Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005).

  5. 5.

    Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987).

  6. 6.

    Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).

  7. 7.

    Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540, 545 (1983).

  8. 8.

    Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005).

  9. 9.

    I refer here to a benefit principle which is different from the one suggested by Thomas Beatley (Beatley, 1988, p. 84) (“The benefit principle states that those who reap the benefits of public projects ought to bear their costs in direct proportion to the level of benefits received”).

  10. 10.

    See, AdminC (TA) 2111-09 Rosenblum (Goren) v. Tel-Aviv Yafo Municipality (19.2.2012) (Isr.); AdminC (TA) 31405-09-13 Mindleen v. Tel-Aviv Yafo Municipality (10.4.2014) (Isr.).

  11. 11.

    Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26.

  12. 12.

    Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469.

  13. 13.

    “Formalized” or “titled” land refers to land that is listed in an official land record, and hence its owners are publicly known (cf, Merrill & Smith, 2016, pp. 857–881).

References

  • Beatley, T. (1988). Development exactions and social justice. In R. Alterman (Ed.), Private supply of public services (pp. 83–95). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatley, T. (2012). Green urbanism: Learning from European cities. Washington DC: Island Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, D. (2014). Private property and public power: Eminent domain in Philadelphia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Been, V. (1991). ‘Exit’ as a constraint on land use exactions: Rethinking the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Columbia Law Review, 91(3), 473–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Been, V. (1992). What’s fairness got to do with it? Environmental justice and the siting of locally undesirable land uses. Cornell Law Review, 78, 1001–1085.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, A., & Parchomovsky, G. (2001). Givings. The Yale Law Journal, 111(3), 547–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, A., & Parchomovsky, G. (2006). The uselessness of public use. Columbia Law Review, 106(6), 1412–1449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boustan, L. P. (2016). Competition in the promised land: Black migrants in Northern Cities and labor markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabresi, G., & Melamed, A. D. (1972). Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: One view of the Cathedral. Harvard Law Review, 85, 1089–1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callies, D. L., Curtin, D. J., & Tappendorf, J. A. (2003). Bargaining for development: A handbook on development agreements, annexation agreements, land development conditions, vested rights, and the provision of public facilities. Washington, DC: Oryx/Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callies, D. L., & Tappendorf, J. A. (2000). Unconstitutional land development conditions and the development agreement solution: Bargaining for public facilities after Nollan and Dolan. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 51, 663–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, H. (2012). ‘Planning ethics’ and rediscovering the idea of planning 2. Planning Theory, 11(4), 379–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, H., & Marshall, R. (2002). Utilitarianism’s bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning. Planning Theory, 1(2), 163–187. doi:10.1177/147309520200100205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, D. M., & Ross, J. K. (2009). Testing O’Connor and Thomas: Does the use of eminent domain target poor and minority communities? Urban Studies, 46(11), 2447–2461. doi:10.1177/0042098009342597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D. L., & Yeh, S. (2012). Expropriation, inequality, and growth: The economic impacts of eminent domain. NBER Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clodfelter, P. A., & Sullivan, E. J. (2014). Substantive due process through the just compensation clause: Understanding Koontz’s ‘special application’ of the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions by tracing the doctrine’s history. The Urban Lawyer, 46(3), 569–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crompton, J. L. (2001). The impact of parks on property values: A review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(1), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, J., Thill, J. C., Feng, C., & Zhu, G. (2016). Land wealth generation and distribution in the process of land expropriation and development in Beijing, China. Urban Geography, 1–21. doi:10.1080/02723638.2016.1228373.

  • Echeverria, J. D. (2014). Koontz: The very worst takings decision ever. NYU Environmental Law Journal, 22, 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. A. (1985). Takings: Private property and the power of eminent domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The just city. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fainstein, S. S., & DeFilippis, J. (2016). Introduction: The structure and debates of planning theory. In S. S. Fainstein & J. DeFilippis (Eds.), Readings in planning theory (4th ed., pp. 1–17). Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved from http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd1119045061.html

  • Fennell, L. A. (2014). Agglomerama. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2014(6), 1373–1414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, L. A., & Peñalver, E. M. (2014). Exactions creep. The Supreme Court Review, 2013(1), 287–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenster, M. (2006). Regulating land use in a constitution shadow: The institutional contexts of exactions. Hastings Law Journal, 58, 729–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenster, M. (2011). Failed exactions. Vermont Law Review, 36, 623–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischel, W. A. (2000). Zoning and land use regulation. In B. Bouckaert & G. De Geest (Eds.), Encyclopedia of law and economics (Vol. II). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Bar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischel, W. A. (2005). The Homevoter hypothesis: How home values influence local government taxation, school finance, and land-use policies. Harvard University Press. Retrieved from http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674015951

  • Fischler, R. (1998). The Metropolitan dimension of early zoning: Revisiting the 1916 New York City ordinance. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(2), 170–188. doi:10.1080/01944369808975974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischler, R. (2007). Development controls in Toronto in the nineteenth century. Urban History Review / Revue D’histoire Urbaine, 36(1), 16–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frieden, B. J., & Sagalyn, L. B. (1991). Downtown, Inc: How America rebuilds cities. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frischmann, B. M., & Lemley, M. A. (2007). Spillovers. Columbia Law Review, 107, 257–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gans, H. J. (1982). Urban villagers: Group and class in the life of Italian-Americans. New York; London: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotham, K. F. (2001). A city without slums: Urban renewal, public housing, and downtown revitalization in Kansas City, Missouri. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 60(1), 285–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gramling, R., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1992). Opportunity -threat, development, and adaptation: Toward a comprehensive framework for social impact assessment. Rural Sociology, 57(2), 216–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. (2002). Cities of tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, B. W. (1975). Property taxes and the Tiebout hypothesis: Some empirical evidence. In E. S. Mills & W. E. Oates (Eds.), Fiscal zoning and land use controls: The economic issues (Vol. 13). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. V. (1985). The impact of zoning policies which regulate housing quality. Journal of Urban Economics, 18(3), 302–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoehn, J. P., & Adanu, K. (2014). What motivates voters’ support for eminent domain reform: Ownership, vulnerability, or ideology? International Review of Law and Economics, 37, 90–99. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2013.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, S. E., & Osborn, F. J. (1965). Garden cities of to-morrow. London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplinsky, E., Tucker, E., Muir, J., & Ziff, B. (2012). The Zoroastrian Temple in Toronto: A case study in land use regulation, Canadian-Style. In Property on trial: Canadian cases in context (p. 223). Toronto: Irwin Law for the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karkkainen, B. C. (2002). Toward a smarter NEPA: Monitoring and managing government’s environmental performance. Columbia Law Review, 102, 903–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, D. B. (2011). Acquiring land through eminent domain: Justifications, limitations, and alternatives. In K. Ayotte & H. E. Smith (Eds.), Research handbook on the economic analysis of property law (pp. 344–371). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kmiec, D. W. (1996). Inserting the last remaining pieces into the takings puzzle. William & Mary Law Review, 38, 995–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knesset Research and Information Center. (2007). The district planning and building board’s treatment of detailed urban building schemes (TABA) (Heb.). Retrieved from http://www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/m01981.pdf

  • “Koontz, 133 S. Ct. 2586, Transcript of Oral Argument.” (2013). Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-1447.pdf

  • Lennon, M., & Fox-Rogers, L. (2016). Morality, power and the planning subject. Planning Theory, doi:10.1177/1473095216648185.

  • Levine-Schnur, R. (2013). Law, contracts, and urban planning: Legal aspects of development agreements between local authorities and private developers. Jerusalem: Floersheimer Studies, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine-Schnur, R. (2014). Agreements between local governments and private entrepreneurs as a means for urban development. Unpublished Dissertation on file with author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine-Schnur, R. (in press-a). Revitalizing land use law: Introductory notes. Journal of Law and Social Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine-Schnur, R. (in press-b). Winners and losers in takings for pure public uses: An empirical examination.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine-Schnur, R., & Ferdman, A. (2015). On the just distribution of land use rights. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 28(2), 317–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, J., Deininger, K., & Hilhorst, T. (2016). Compulsory land acquisition in developing countries: Shifting paradigm or entrenched legacy? Unpublished. Retrieved from https://www.conftool.com/landandpoverty2016/index.php?page=browseSessions&print=head&form_session=444&presentations=show

  • MacLeod, A. J. (2012). Identifying values in land use regulation. Kentucky Law Journal, 101, 55–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makeilski, S. J. (1966). The politics of zoning: The New York experience. Metropolitan Series No. 4. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makuch, S. M. (2016). The disappearance of planning law in Ontario. In A. Smit & M. Valiante (Eds.), Public interest, private property: Land and planning in Canada (pp. 87–103). Vancouver; Toronto: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, T. W., & Smith, H. E. (2016). Property: Principles and policies (3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf, C. (2015). The (Ir) relevance of constitutional protection for property rights? Compensation for takings in Canada and the United States. University of Toronto Law Journal, 65(3), 143–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, A. A. (2013a). Trading density for benefits: Section 37 agreements in Toronto. University of Toronto: Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance Perspective.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, A. A. (2013b). Trading density for benefits: Toronto and Vancouver compared. University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, E. (2012). The sword in the zone: Fantasies of land-use planning law. University of Toronto Law Journal, 62(2), 163–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulvaney, T. M. (2016). On bargaining for development. Florida Law Review Forum, 67, 66–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, L. (1961). The city in history: Its origins, its transformations, and its prospects. Brace & World: Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, J., & Diamond, S. S. (2008). Eminent domain and the psychology of property rights: Proposed use, subjective attachment, and taker identity. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 5(4), 713–749. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2008.00139.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolon, S. F. (2015). Bargaining for development post-Koontz: How the supreme court invaded local government. Florida Law Review, 67, 171–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olmsted, F. L. (2013). Public parks and the enlargement of towns, American Social Science Association 1870. In M. Larice & E. Macdonald (Eds.), The urban design reader (pp. 36–44). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrow, A. P. (2008). Judicial review of local land use decisions: Lessons from RLUIPA. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 31, 717–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parchomovsky, G., & Siegelman, P. (2012). Cities, property, and positive externalities. William & Mary Law Review, 54, 211–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendall, R. (2000). Local land use regulation and the chain of exclusion. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(2), 125–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, W. E. (2003). The ‘public menace’ of blight: Urban renewal and the private uses of eminent domain. Yale Law & Policy Review, 21(1), 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Revesz, R. L., & Livermore, M. A. (2008). Retaking rationality: How cost-benefit analysis can better protect the environment and our health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, C. M. (1983). Planning and dealing: Piecemeal land controls as a problem of local legitimacy. California Law Review, 71(3), 837–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, J., & Massey, D. (2009). The effect of density zoning on racial segregation in us urban areas. Urban Affairs Review, 44(6), 779–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxer, S. R. (2016). To bargain or not to bargain? A response to bargaining for development post-Koontz. Florida Law Review Forum, 67, 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selmi, D. P. (2015). Negotiations in the aftermath of Koontz. Maryland Law Review, 75, 743–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serkin, C. (2016). The winners and losers in negotiating exactions: A response to Sean Nolon. Florida Law Review Forum, 67, 9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serkin, C., Ellickson, R., Been, V., & Hills, R. M. (2013). Land use controls: Cases and materials. New York: Wolters Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoked, N. (2011). Reinvention of ownership: The embrace of residential zoning and the modern populist reading of property. Yale Journal on Regulation, 28, 91–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somin, I. (2015). The grasping hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the limits of eminent domain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Starritt, S. D., & McClanahan, J. H. (1995). Land-use planning and takings: The viability of conditional exactions to conserve open space in the Rocky Mountain West after Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994). Land & Water Law Review, 30, 415–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toll, S. I. (1969). Zoned American (1st ed.). New York: Grossman Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valiante, M. (2016). In search of the ‘public interest’ in Ontario planning decisions. In Public interest, private property: Land and planning policy in Canada (pp. 104–134). Vancouver; Toronto: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valiante, M., & Smit, A. (2016). Introduction. In M. Valiante & A. Smit (Eds.), Public interest, private property: Land and planning policy in Canada (pp. 1–33). Vancouver-Toronto: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Versteeg, M. (2015). The politics of takings clauses. Northwestern University Law Review, 109, 695–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetlaufer, G. B. (1990). Rhetoric and its denial in legal discourse. Virginia Law Review, 76, 1545–1597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheaton, W. C. (1993). Land capitalization, Tiebout mobility, and the role of zoning regulations. Journal of Urban Economics, 34(2), 102–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M. A. (2008). The zoning of America: Euclid V. Ambler. University Press of Kensas.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radzyner Law School, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Herzliya, Israel

    Ronit Levine-Schnur

Authors
  1. Ronit Levine-Schnur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronit Levine-Schnur .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Radzyner Law School, Gazit-Globe Real Estate Institute, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Herzliya, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Amnon Lehavi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Levine-Schnur, R. (2018). Revitalizing Land Use Law: The Burdens-Benefits Ratio Principle. In: Lehavi, A. (eds) One Hundred Years of Zoning and the Future of Cities . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66869-7_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation