Talk:Regulatory takings in the United States

Untitled
I'm going to try to add some material over the next several weeks. Then, after its all there, I'm going to come back and try to reorganize and improve the encyclopedic language. My plan would be to begin with some material on the nature of property, which I think is fundamental to an understanding of the regulatory taking issue. Then I've begun some material on the evolution of US constitutional law on takings. Likely, there will be lawyers or law students out there who may disagree with the selection of materials, but its a start. If you can improve the analysis, please help.

Then I'm going to try to walk through the series of key cases in the 20th century on takings showing how they relate to the regulatory takings issue. Finally, a discussion of the most recent cases.

If you have thoughts on a different approach, post here. If you have contributions to any of these topics, go for it. I'll be back from time to time to make additions. As this happens, by the way, there may be some temporary duplications, for which I apologize.

Jvonkorff (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

POV
This seems to be an agruement for a particular view of the takings clause not a nutal aticle. I assume that Jvonkoroff will remidy this, but I will be back for a look later. 70.150.94.194 (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This article reads like an American students thesis. Far too much detail, and far too Americanised. So much so that the language suggests all readers are American! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It reads more like a syllabus of an American law school course in regulatory takings. 24.47.228.216 (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC) kolef88 24.47.228.216 (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Any objections to moving this page
It seems that this page has been focused exclusively on regulatory takings in the United States for about a decade. It would seem wise to just move the page under the name Regulatory Takings in the United States or something similar. Does anyone disagree with this? Muttnick (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sigh! Regulatory taking is certainly not a concept that applies only to the U.S.  It seems like so frequently we come across articles that discuss a concept that we might think of as very U.S.-specific or perhaps which has a nation-specific interpretation, and we're inundated with separate sections on each of numerous countries.  Whereas "regulatory taking" is a concept that exists independent of the law - just because the Supreme Court may state otherwise doesn't mean that it's not actually a regulatory taking.
 * This is a concept that applies anywhere there is both the concept of private property and one in which the law may set restrictions on how private property is used. As just one quick example, see Comparative Perspectives on Expropriation and Other Takings: England, France, Germany, and the United States (abstract).
 * It seems like the better approach to this would be to have an article that discusses the conceptual framework and/or provides a worldview, then have distinct content on how it applies in particular parts of the world. I know, I know: that's not how things work on WP, but that doesn't make it good. Fabrickator (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)