Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Law and Business Ethics Chapter 6-D


MIkael Dubinsky

on 29 October 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Law and Business Ethics Chapter 6-D

Planet Earth Different Perspectives Androcentric perspective- places worth upon the environments resources in terms of how it can benefit us materially. The Firth Amendment states that "Private Property [may not] be taken for public use, without just compensation" The Major Problem How to define word's such as "Public Use", "Just Compensation", and especially the word "Taking". Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Counsel Case facts:
In 1986 David H. Lucas paid $975,000 for two residential ocean front lots on the Isle of Palms South Carolina. ( Intended to build single-family homes ).
In 1988 South Carolina legislature enacted the Beachfront Management Act , which prevented him from building any permanent habitable structures on his two parcels. Thank You Everyone !!
Questions ? Comments ?
Mikael Dubinsky

PRIVATE PROPERTY, REGULATION AND THE CONSTITUTION; THE LUCAS CASE; ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Presents: Chapter 6-D Biocentric - Is primarily concerned with the entire natural world for it's own sake, not because of anything it can do for us. What can the environment do for US ? What can we do for the enviroment ? Private Property However, the power to take private property for public use is called "eminent domain". An example, in 1926 case land that had been zoned for industrial development was restricted by a new zoning ordinance to residential use, reducing it's value to the owner by 75%. As we will see, most cases arise from a government regulation designed to protect the environment impinges on an owner's freedom to use that property in some way Main Issues Before the land purchase, South Carolina enacted a law designed to manage development activities.
In 1977, Coastal Zone Managment Act- required owners of coastal zone land that qualified as a "critical area" to obtain a permit from the South Carolina Coastal Council in order to build or to put the land to new us After the purchase, 1988 a new legislation directed the Council to create a line beyond which no" occupiable improvements" could be built.
David H. Lukas now found that he was prohibited from building on his land. 1972
Coastal Zone Management Act 1986
David H. Lucas buys property 1977
South Carolina created it's own
Coastal Zone Mgt. Act 1988
New Laws prevent him from building During this time no portion of the lots were qualified as a "Critical Area". Also, at the time Lucas acquired these parcels, he was not legally obliged to obtain a permit from the Council in advance of any development activity New legislation drafted new baseline,
Lucas found he was prohibited from
building. That sucks ! Better luck next time. 1990,
Mikael Dubinsky was born.
Win ! 2012
(October 28).
Mikael receives an A++
on his presentation.
Win's Again. Case History The Question Whether the South Carolina Supreme Court erred in holding that the Beachfront Management Act was a valid exercise of the police power and did not constitute a taking. Categorical Requirements for Compensation 1) Regulations that compel the property owner to suffer a physical "invasion" of his property.
2) Regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive options for its use. The "Total Taking" Analysis. (1) The degree of harm to public lands or adjacent property posed by the regulated activities.

(2) The social value of such activities.

(3) The relative ease with which the alleged harms can be avoided through measures taken by either the claimant or the government. Environmental Justice The Decision Member Member Example Refers to the ethical issues at the intersection of race/class discrimination and environmental harm or reform, as people who have suffered from discrimination or poverty are affected differently than the rest of the population. Justice Kennedy,
Concurring in the judgment. Member Judgment against Lucas is reversed. The case goes back to the state courts to determine if common law principles would prevent him from building on his property. Later on... After paying Lucas $850,000 in compensation for the two lots, South Carolina proceeded to sell the lots to private parties for development. Large homes now sit on both lots. (cc) photo by theaucitron on Flickr (cc) photo by theaucitron on Flickr "In my view, reasonable expectations must be understood in light of the whole of our legal tradition. The common law of nuisance is too narrow a confine for the exercise of regulatory power in a complex and interdependent society"- (Halbert/Ingulli pg. 234 ) Justice Blackmun, dissenting The court should not have granted certiorari to hear this case and it ignores its jurisdictional limits, remakes its traditional rules of review and created simultaneously a new categorical rule and an exception. There could never be a total loss because the owner can still enjoy other attributes of ownership such as right to exclude others, picnic, swim, camp in a tent or live on the property in a movable trailer Justice Blackmun,
dissenting A largely African American Neighborhood in North Carolina, was used as a dumping site for thousands of of tons of toxic oil. Charges of Environmental racism where made. He did bring candy ...
Full transcript