-If I tell my daughter that she cannot play with her
ball in the house, she has lost something of value – the right to
play with the ball in the house. I have regulated what she can do
with the ball, but I haven’t “taken” it. She is still free to play
with it outside. I only “take” her ball when I physically seize it.
Only a child immersed in the literature of the property rights
movement would argue otherwise.”
* William
Michael Treanor,
in “The Original Understanding
of
the Takings
Clause’
Behind the contentious
debate over the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment lies simple
and clear language, writes Treanor, an associate professor of law
at Fordham University. But this language – -nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation’ – has
been distorted by the property rights movement, which seeks to
force the federal government to reimburse property owners when the
value of land is diminished by environmental controls. Treanor
writes that the government does have the responsibility to
reimburse property owners when land is taken – such as for a fort –
and that’s it. His 18-page booklet costs $1.50 from the
Environmental Policy Project, Georgetown University Law Center, 600
New Jersey Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20001 (202/662-9850),
envpoly@law.georgetown.edu.
* Dustin
Solberg
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Takings clarified.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
