1. Property Rights and Land Development Prof. Harvey M. Jacobs Dept. of Urban & Reg. Planning Gaylord Nelson Inst. for Env. Studies University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

2. Outline Social Conflict Over Property Rights –Studying-researching these conflicts Conflicting Concepts of Property Rights Challenges for Public Policy and Land Development

3. Social Conflict – USA So-called Private Property Rights (PPR) movement formally arises in 1988 Goal-agenda – dismantle “pervasive” regulatory state with regard to land resources and private property

4. State-based Policy Activity Since 1991 27 of the 50 states (27 of lower 48 states) have adopted laws promoted by and supporting the position of the PPR movement These states range from Maine to Florida, Delaware to Washington, and include 11 states east of the Mississippi River

6. New Initiative: The Kelo Decision Decided in June 2005, by a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court Being used by PPR movement to organize citizens against government expropriation and regulatory authority over land and property rights 34 states have adopted state-based laws to “blunt” impact of Kelo

7. Impact on Public Opinion PPR movement has successfully redirected public discussion about land use and environmental planning and policy –So that now it more commonly happens from their point of view i.e. how is proposed policy going to impact private property rights

8. Research Process Harvey M. Jacobs. 1998. “The Impact of State Property Rights Laws: Those Laws and My Land,” Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 50, 3: 3-8. Harvey M. Jacobs. 1999. “State Property Rights Laws: The Impacts of Those Laws on My Land,” Policy Focus Report. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, March 1999.

9. Goals of Research An examination of the impact of state-based laws being promoted by private property rights movement To determine what degree of threat these laws represent to “mainstream” planning practice To provide some evidence-data above and beyond anecdotal stories to use in policy assessment To provide evidence-data for the design of counter- strategies –Where such counter-strategies are deemed appropriate and necessary

10. Research Method Institutional approach –Construct theory-policy frame from public record Newspaper articles Presentations of key figures –Read-deconstruct legislation –Establish case sites (states) Examine administrative records Undertake interviews –Non-random sample with semi-structured questionnaire –Utilize expert panels for group analysis of findings and conclusions –Test findings through presentations to diverse audiences

11. Social Conflict – Europe Europe is undergoing a process of fundamental change –A “United States” of Europe is unfolding Elimination of border controls Creation of common labor market Introduction of a common currency (the euro) Integration of the higher education system

12. Property’s Role Europe did not experience “boom” of 1990s; why not? –Some suggest it has to do with Power of the central state Legacy of command-and- control Definition of property Need for political and economical robustness

13. The “Taking” of Europe? Question for this research –Role of private property and “takings” in the re- forming of Europe?

14. Research Process The ‘Taking’ of Europe? Globalizing the American Ideal of Private Property Working Paper available from Lincoln Institute of Land Policy http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/PubDetail.aspx?pubid=1105

15. Goals of Research To investigate a hinted-at transition in social and legal status of private property –And to understand its likely implications for planning policy and land use To determine whether Europe will learn –From the U.S.’s experiences about the management of private property To understand how this move will be reconciled –With other, (competing?), long-standing social values of spatial management

16. Research Method Institutional and qualitative –Examination of policy documents about proposed change Focus on the analyses prepared by governmental organizations and advocacy groups –Country-based case studies Interview-based research utilizing purposive sample of informed actors –In the public, NGO and scholarly sectors

17. Conflicting Concepts of Property Rights Formal legal concept –Used by jurists to interpret law –Used by economists to model behavior Semi-formal market-legal concept –Used by owners, users, claimants to acquire Informal cultural concept –Incorporated into owners and users ideas about property rights

18. Challenges for Public Policy and Land Development Clashes of property rights concepts –Public policy most often based on formal legal concept –Land development can incorporate semi- formal concepts –Both public policy and land development can have difficulty (or choose to ignore) informal concepts