Podcasts about south carolina coastal council

Summary of Chapter 6: Land Use Controls and Regulation. Land use controls and regulations are vital tools used by governments and private parties to manage how land is developed, maintained, and used. These regulations ensure the harmonious coexistence of various land uses, promote public welfare, and protect environmental and community interests. This chapter covers key aspects of land use controls, including zoning laws, eminent domain, environmental regulations, and private land use agreements. Zoning Laws and Ordinances. Purpose: Zoning laws are established to separate different land uses, such as residential, commercial, and industrial areas, to promote organized and sustainable urban development. Types of Zoning: Includes residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, mixed-use, and special-purpose zoning, each with specific rules and regulations. Legal Challenges: Issues such as nonconforming uses, variances, spot zoning, and exclusionary zoning often arise, requiring legal scrutiny and resolution. Eminent Domain and Takings. Eminent Domain: The government's power to take private property for public use, with just compensation to the owner, for projects like infrastructure, parks, or utilities. Takings: Occurs when government regulations limit property use so significantly that they constitute a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment, requiring compensation. Legal Cases: Key legal cases, such as Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, have shaped the interpretation and application of eminent domain and regulatory takings. Environmental Regulations. Federal and State Laws: Environmental regulations, including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, are designed to protect natural resources and public health by controlling pollution and managing land use impacts. Environmental Impact Assessments: These assessments evaluate potential environmental effects of proposed projects and are essential for informed decision-making. Legal Challenges: Compliance with environmental regulations often leads to legal disputes between property owners, developers, and regulatory agencies. Private Land Use Controls. Easements: Legal rights that allow specific use of another's land, such as access or utility placement, which can be appurtenant, in gross, prescriptive, or express. Covenants and Equitable Servitudes: Private agreements that impose restrictions or obligations on land use to maintain community standards and property values. Legal Considerations: Disputes can arise over the interpretation and enforcement of these private controls, with courts considering factors like intent, notice, and changed circumstances. Conclusion. Land use controls and regulations are critical for achieving balanced, sustainable development that respects both private property rights and public interests. By understanding zoning laws, eminent domain, environmental regulations, and private land use controls, individuals and communities can navigate complex land use challenges effectively. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! In today's episode from our "Listen and Learn" series, we tackle the topic of regulatory takings, which is often tested in crossover essay questions that cover both Property and Constitutional Law issues. In this episode, we discuss: What constitutes a "taking"? Possessory and regulatory takings Distinguishing between the two types of regulatory takings The Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council case The three Penn Central factors, derived from the case Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City The "denominator problem" Analyzing two hypos involving regulatory takings How to organize your answer when the question provides a list of claims by separate parties Resources: “Listen and Learn” series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2015 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/gbx/July2015_CBXSelectedAnswers_EssayQuestions1-6_R.pdf) Podcast Episode 39: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Real Property (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-39-tackling-a-california-bar-exam-essay-real-property/) Podcast Episode 65: Tackling an MEE Real Property Essay Question (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-65-tackling-an-mee-real-property-essay-question/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-140-listen-and-learn-regulatory-takings/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

500!!!! WOOOOOOO! It's time for the deep-dive we've been putting off for 5 years. Eminent domain! Links: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, Murr v. Wisconsin, 2017, Kelo v. City of New London, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, Pfizer To Close New London Headquarters

It's our annual Supreme Court term roundup, with special guest Ian Samuel. We discuss, natch, one case, Carpenter v. United States, which concerns the need for a warrant to get records from cell phone companies concerning the location of your phone. But there's much more, including: hard drive upgrades, the sum total of human writing, audio vs. text for messaging, emojis, AI and grunts, Supreme Court-packing / balancing / restructuring (16:37), what rules of procedure an enlarged Court should set for itself and what rules should be imposed on it (29:00), podcast lengths and listening habits (51:04), Carpenter v. United States(01:02:06), Batman movies, and Hold-Up. This show’s links: First Mondays (http://www.firstmondays.fm) Ian Samuel’s writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=936551) Ian Samuel, The New Writs of Assistance (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3075587) Snopes, Did Facebook Shut Down an AI Experiment Because Chatbots Developed Their Own Language? (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-ai-developed-own-language/) (no, but interesting) Oral Argument 134: Crossover (http://oralargument.org/134) Christian Turner, Amendment XXVIII: A First Draft (https://www.hydratext.com/blog/2018/7/12/amendment-xxviii) Ian Ayres and John Witt, Democrats Need a Plan B for the Supreme Court. Here’s One Option. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-need-a-plan-b-for-the-supreme-court-heres-one-option/2018/07/27/4c77fd4e-91a6-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html) Oral Argument 37: Hammer Blow (http://oralargument.org/37) (with Michael Dorf); Oral Argument 38: You're Going to Hate this Answer_ (http://oralargument.org/38) (with Steve Vladeck); Christian Turner, Bound by Federal Law (http://www.hydratext.com/blog/2014/10/29/bound-by-federal-law) (including links to posts by Michael and Steve on the issue of state courts' not being bound by federal circuit courts) Carpenter v. United States (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_new_o75q.pdf) Radiolab, Eye in the Sky (https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/update-eye-sky/) Ian Samuel, Warrantless Location Tracking (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1092293) Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=659168721517750079) Florida v. Jardines (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2570635442757547915) Justice Souter’s discussion of Plessy and the role of history in judging (http://www.c-span.org/video/?284498-2/america-courts) (watch from minute one until about minute fourteen) and his Harvard Commencement speech (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/text-of-justice-david-souters-speech/) on Plessy Hold Up! (http://www.hydratext.com/blog/2015/7/24/hold-up) Special Guest: Ian Samuel.

This spring marks the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. In Lucas, a 5-4 Court majority held that a state law can effect a "regulatory taking" and trigger inverse condemnation requirements if it deprives an owner of all viable uses of his land. Join our panel to hear a discussion of questions such as: Did Lucas mark a major change in Supreme Court regulatory takings doctrine? Was the decision about right, or did it go too far or not far enough? Is Lucas still relevant to regulatory takings law today, and what are the chances that the decision might be reconsidered or extended? -- Featuring: James S. Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation; Professor Eric R. Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School Professor and Michael A. Wolf, Professor of Law, Richard E. Nelson Chair in Local Government, University of Florida Levin College of Law.

When people say they can do whatever they want with their property, what do they mean? With Christopher Newman, we go back to first principles to think about property and copyright in new, and yet old, ways. This show’s links: Christopher Newman’s faculty profile (http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/fulltime/newman_christopher) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1222496) Christopher Newman, Vested Use-Privileges in Property and Copyright (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2897083) Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning (https://archive.org/details/jstor-785533) Christian Turner, Legal Theory 101, Reading 3: Hohfeld (https://www.hydratext.com/malt2016/2016/8/14/reading-3-hohfeld) Tom Bell and Chris Newman discussing (https://www.cato.org/events/intellectual-privilege) Bell’s book, Intellectual Privilege (https://books.google.com/books?id=JTanAwAAQBAJ) Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4226653435664355113) Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=659168721517750079) Eric Claeys, Labor, Exclusion, and Flourishing in Property Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2665829) Folsom v. Marsh (https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/5238) and Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5876335373788447272) Christopher Newman, [An Exclusive License Is Not an Assignment: Disentangling Divisibility and Transferability of Ownership in Copyright][newman2] [newman2]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2286833 Special Guest: Christopher Newman.

In his nearly 30 years on the Court, Justice Scalia left a profound mark on many areas of the law, including property rights. From his seminal decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council to his frequent questioning at oral argument, Justice Scalia helped define the relationship between property and the Constitution. While his critics have suggested that Justice Scalia's property rights jurisprudence manifested a willingness to engage in “judicial activism," others have defended Scalia's approach as consistent with original understandings of the text of the Constitution. -- This panel will address Justice Scalia's influence on constitutional understandings of property rights. Professor Ely has written extensively on the historical understandings of property rights including the popular book, The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights. Professor Somin's recently published The Grasping Hand: "Kelo V. City of New London" and the Limits of Eminent Domain explores one of the Court's most notorious departures from the protection of property rights. Professor Hills is a renowned expert on the law of land use planning and has taken a more charitable view of the power of government to control the use of property. He is a co-author of Land Use Controls: Cases and Materials. The panel will be moderated by Justice Allison Eid, from the Colorado Supreme Court. -- Featuring: Prof. John Echeverria, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School; Prof. James W. Ely, Jr., Milton R. Underwood Professor of Law Emeritus, Professor of History Emeritus, Lecturer in Law, Vanderbilt Law School; Prof. Roderick M. Hills, Jr., William T. Comfort, III Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Hon. Adam P. Laxalt, Attorney General, Nevada; and Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. Moderator: Hon. Allison H. Eid, Colorado Supreme Court. Introduction: Mr. Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.