Revitalizing Land Use Law: The Burdens-Benefits Ratio Principle

  • Ronit Levine-Schnur


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.


  1. 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
  2. Beatley, T. (2012). Green urbanism: Learning from European cities. Washington DC: Island Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becher, D. (2014). Private property and public power: Eminent domain in Philadelphia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Been, V. (1991). ‘Exit’ as a constraint on land use exactions: Rethinking the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Columbia Law Review, 91(3), 473–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bell, A., & Parchomovsky, G. (2001). Givings. The Yale Law Journal, 111(3), 547–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell, A., & Parchomovsky, G. (2006). The uselessness of public use. Columbia Law Review, 106(6), 1412–1449.Google Scholar
  8. Boustan, L. P. (2016). Competition in the promised land: Black migrants in Northern Cities and labor markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Calabresi, G., & Melamed, A. D. (1972). Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: One view of the Cathedral. Harvard Law Review, 85, 1089–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Campbell, H. (2012). ‘Planning ethics’ and rediscovering the idea of planning 2. Planning Theory, 11(4), 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen, D. L., & Yeh, S. (2012). Expropriation, inequality, and growth: The economic impacts of eminent domain. NBER Papers.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. Echeverria, J. D. (2014). Koontz: The very worst takings decision ever. NYU Environmental Law Journal, 22, 1–56.Google Scholar
  20. Epstein, R. A. (1985). Takings: Private property and the power of eminent domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The just city. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Fennell, L. A. (2014). Agglomerama. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2014(6), 1373–1414.Google Scholar
  24. Fennell, L. A., & Peñalver, E. M. (2014). Exactions creep. The Supreme Court Review, 2013(1), 287–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fenster, M. (2006). Regulating land use in a constitution shadow: The institutional contexts of exactions. Hastings Law Journal, 58, 729–776.Google Scholar
  26. Fenster, M. (2011). Failed exactions. Vermont Law Review, 36, 623–648.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fischler, R. (2007). Development controls in Toronto in the nineteenth century. Urban History Review / Revue D’histoire Urbaine, 36(1), 16–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frieden, B. J., & Sagalyn, L. B. (1991). Downtown, Inc: How America rebuilds cities. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Frischmann, B. M., & Lemley, M. A. (2007). Spillovers. Columbia Law Review, 107, 257–302.Google Scholar
  33. Gans, H. J. (1982). Urban villagers: Group and class in the life of Italian-Americans. New York; London: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hall, P. (2002). Cities of tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Henderson, J. V. (1985). The impact of zoning policies which regulate housing quality. Journal of Urban Economics, 18(3), 302–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Howard, S. E., & Osborn, F. J. (1965). Garden cities of to-morrow. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Karkkainen, B. C. (2002). Toward a smarter NEPA: Monitoring and managing government’s environmental performance. Columbia Law Review, 102, 903–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Kmiec, D. W. (1996). Inserting the last remaining pieces into the takings puzzle. William & Mary Law Review, 38, 995–1046.Google Scholar
  45. Knesset Research and Information Center. (2007). The district planning and building board’s treatment of detailed urban building schemes (TABA) (Heb.). Retrieved from
  46. “Koontz, 133 S. Ct. 2586, Transcript of Oral Argument.” (2013). Retrieved from
  47. Lennon, M., & Fox-Rogers, L. (2016). Morality, power and the planning subject. Planning Theory, doi: 10.1177/1473095216648185.
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. Levine-Schnur, R. (in press-a). Revitalizing land use law: Introductory notes. Journal of Law and Social Policy.Google Scholar
  51. Levine-Schnur, R. (in press-b). Winners and losers in takings for pure public uses: An empirical examination.Google Scholar
  52. Levine-Schnur, R., & Ferdman, A. (2015). On the just distribution of land use rights. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 28(2), 317–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lindsay, J., Deininger, K., & Hilhorst, T. (2016). Compulsory land acquisition in developing countries: Shifting paradigm or entrenched legacy? Unpublished. Retrieved from
  54. MacLeod, A. J. (2012). Identifying values in land use regulation. Kentucky Law Journal, 101, 55–112.Google Scholar
  55. Makeilski, S. J. (1966). The politics of zoning: The New York experience. Metropolitan Series No. 4. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Merrill, T. W., & Smith, H. E. (2016). Property: Principles and policies (3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. Moore, A. A. (2013b). Trading density for benefits: Toronto and Vancouver compared. University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.Google Scholar
  61. Morgan, E. (2012). The sword in the zone: Fantasies of land-use planning law. University of Toronto Law Journal, 62(2), 163–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mulvaney, T. M. (2016). On bargaining for development. Florida Law Review Forum, 67, 66–77.Google Scholar
  63. Mumford, L. (1961). The city in history: Its origins, its transformations, and its prospects. Brace & World: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nolon, S. F. (2015). Bargaining for development post-Koontz: How the supreme court invaded local government. Florida Law Review, 67, 171–220.Google Scholar
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. Parchomovsky, G., & Siegelman, P. (2012). Cities, property, and positive externalities. William & Mary Law Review, 54, 211–262.Google Scholar
  69. Pendall, R. (2000). Local land use regulation and the chain of exclusion. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(2), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. Rose, C. M. (1983). Planning and dealing: Piecemeal land controls as a problem of local legitimacy. California Law Review, 71(3), 837–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rothwell, J., & Massey, D. (2009). The effect of density zoning on racial segregation in us urban areas. Urban Affairs Review, 44(6), 779–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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
  75. Selmi, D. P. (2015). Negotiations in the aftermath of Koontz. Maryland Law Review, 75, 743–757.Google Scholar
  76. Serkin, C. (2016). The winners and losers in negotiating exactions: A response to Sean Nolon. Florida Law Review Forum, 67, 9–12.Google Scholar
  77. Serkin, C., Ellickson, R., Been, V., & Hills, R. M. (2013). Land use controls: Cases and materials. New York: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
  78. 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
  79. Somin, I. (2015). The grasping hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the limits of eminent domain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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
  81. Toll, S. I. (1969). Zoned American (1st ed.). New York: Grossman Publishers.Google Scholar
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. Versteeg, M. (2015). The politics of takings clauses. Northwestern University Law Review, 109, 695–738.Google Scholar
  85. Wetlaufer, G. B. (1990). Rhetoric and its denial in legal discourse. Virginia Law Review, 76, 1545–1597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wheaton, W. C. (1993). Land capitalization, Tiebout mobility, and the role of zoning regulations. Journal of Urban Economics, 34(2), 102–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wolf, M. A. (2008). The zoning of America: Euclid V. Ambler. University Press of Kensas.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radzyner Law School, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) HerzliyaHerzliyaIsrael

Personalised recommendations