- CEQA: “Even California Democrats See Need for Regulatory Reform” [Steven Greenhut]
- Subject of a blog: “One man’s struggle to get a building permit for his house in San Luis Obispo County” [SLO Leaks Blog]
- Can New Urbanism be rescued from elitism? [Aaron Renn, Urbanophile]
- SCOTUS set to review land-use exactions in Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District case [Ilya Shapiro and Tim Sandefur, Washington Times; Adler, more; Gideon Kanner, more; Richard Epstein, Hoover]
- “Local regulations make new housing more costly” [Lisa Sturtevant and Agnès Artemel, Greater Greater Washington]
- “The First Circuit Engrafts ‘Lenses’ Onto Penn Central‘s ‘Three Factors'” [Kanner]
- Should property buffs cheer at Supreme Court’s reinstatement of owner’s claims in Arkansas Game & Fish case? [Richard Samp/WLF, Richard Epstein/PoL]
2 Comments
The San Luis Obispo property owner’s experience reminded me of my own, with our state’s environmental conservation department. The application and approval process they put us through (for a municipal waste recycling facility, of all things) was best summed up by our project engineer as: You ask the environmental conservation agency staff what they want, and they say “Bring me a rock.” You come back with a rock, and they respond “Bring me a white rock.” Upon your return with a white rock, they respond “Bring me a big white rock”, and so on ad infinitum. At some point you realize that either these people are the intellectual heirs of the Mad Hatter, or someone further up in the bureaucratic food chain does not like your client.
The article on the First Circuit treatment of Penn Central notes that the court has found that lenses are provided…perhaps, equipped with these, the reader will now be able to view the emanations and penumbras which the Supreme Court perceived in Roe v. Wade?
It’s a thought.