• We do the Bridge-Walks on Saturday mornings assuming no rain or other commitments. We meet at 7:45 a.m. and begin walking to the Golden Gate Bridge at 8:00 a.m. It's okay to arrive late; you'll just have to catch up or meet us after the turn at Fort Point. 7:45 a.m. SFYC-Marina parking lot to GGB & return, assuming a decent weather forecast. This is a walk TO, not over, the bridge, and back.

  • Description: Unless otherwise noted, all walks proceed as follows: we begin at the parking lot shown as Yacht Road on Mapquest adjacent to the north end of the Marina Green next to the St. Francis Yacht Club. We meet at 7:45 a.m. and at 8:00 a.m. ambling towards the Golden Gate Bridge, which is about a mile-and-a-quarter away. If you're late, it's easy to catch up. The round trip takes about 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 hours. There are comfort stations at each end. Snacks and a bookstore are at the Warming Hut near the Bridge. Plenty of birds and boats to see along the way. Bring a friend or child, a camera or binoculars. Dress for wind and weather. Drizzles don't bother, rainstorms will cancel. We talk about something, nothing, birds, plants, boats, whatever, and if it relates to Con-Law, so much the better, but that's not required. We enjoy ourselves, basically, by getting fresh air and taking a more or less brisk walk, depending on what stops we make to smell the flowers or view a bird.


  • Choose a work that you love and you won't have to work another day. Confucius
  • A sound mind in a sound body under a sound Constitution, that's our motto. rs
  • The key to nearly everything is a competent investigation, which means one conducted with integrity, an attempt to see where you might be wrong. RS w/ thanks to RPF
  • The key to creating an illusory world is a biased selection of facts according to a preconceived notion. - Thomas Sowell
  • The past isn't dead, it's all around you... rs
  • The past isn't dead. It isn't even past. -- Wm. Faulkner
  • If Constitutional Law doesn't get your dander up, you're not getting it. -- R. Sheridan
  • The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, but remember, you are the easiest person to fool. -- Richard P. Feynman
  • No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. -- U.S. Constitution, Amends 5, 14
  • No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned,...or in any other way destroyed...except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. - Magna Carta
  • The only thing new under the sun is the history you don't know. -- Harry S Truman
  • Study the past if you would divine the future. -- Confucius







November 26, 2004



F-84 writes:

"...Thus, we're cool with land use regulations. But if a wealthy state like Oregon wants open space, then it should go buy some."


Well, not everybody is cool with land use regulations.

Direct takings, compensable under due process, are not the cutting edge constitutional problem under Lucas, because they've been compensable for years.

The private property owners of Oregon who are moving the controversial initiative in question (they're ALL controversial otherwise they wouldn't be initiatives) are objecting to IMPLIED takings, not direct.

Their beef isn't necessarily with the proposition as F-84 states it, namely that if the people of Oregon want open space they can buy the acreage from the owners. That's a direct taking and property owners are not challenging classic eminent domain direct, total, and compensated, takings.

It's the other kind that has their dander up, the implied, partial, and uncompensated takings.

There's more than open space at issue here. There are other kinds of land use planning regulations that deprive an owner of real fair market value.

Protecting endangered species is one. Prohibiting discharge of pollutants to air, water, and ground is another.

Rules in these areas can kill a housing development or a manufacturing plant, dead.

Mr. Property Owner is still owner of his plant, it's just that he might have to turn it into a museum, because he's no longer going to be able to use that big smoke-stack in the backyard. This fellow wants compensation.

Oregon says we're just protecting the people and the fish from asthma and the acid rain that kills fish. And we're not going to compensate you because we don't have to under Lucas.

The Oregon initiative looks like a way to overrule, in effect, Lucas.

Last I heard, oh, say, since Gibbons v. Ogden, having something to do with steamboats on the Hudson around 1824, local law had to give way to federal law on Supremacy grounds.

Wouldn't Oregon argue that Lucas, being Constitutional law, outweighs the Oregon initiative, assuming it passes?

Wouldn't Oregon be right?

Federalist No. 84

RS writes: "As for his eminent domain argument, I pointed out that this issue is a darling of the conservative right, landowners, basically, who want to be compensated for state and federal laws that, they claim, diminish the value of their property; zoning laws for example."

Hmmm... I don't know anyone who argues that eminent domain is per se bad. Hell, it's constitutional, since the Fifth Amendment wouldn't make much sense unless it presupposed this power.

What folks like me want is a return to an original understanding of "public use" and when there is a public use requiring eminent domain, then we want just compensation.

We say that if the people of Oregon want open space, they should purchase the property. This would cause the burden to be shared equally. Instead, too many states and muncipalities want me to subsidize open space for all. That's not fair to require me as a landowner (that's a HYPOTHETICAL *me* since I'm a renter) to bear the burden for you and yours.

Thus, we're cool with land use regulations. But if a wealthy state like Oregon wants open space, then it should go buy some.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2004