missing text image: sites/all/themes/obs_2007/img/reply.gif
John Ryskamp (not verified) says:
As the article linked below will tell you (it will appear in the November 2006, Stetson Law Review), housing now enjoys--not minimum scrutiny any longer--but rather, direct scrutiny. An involuntary deprivation must now articulately facilitate a frequent government purpose. That is a higher level than minimum scrutiny, under which an involuntary deprivation of housing need only bear a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose.
The Ratner project is going forward only because eminent domain is exercised under minimum scrutiny. However, the project fails to meet the direct scrutiny standard.
If you have a lawyer who has the brains to challenge the eminent domain action on the basis that housing enjoys direct scrutiny, that will be the end of the threat.
Cordially yours,
John Ryskamp
Ryskamp, John Henry, "Housing in the New Constitution" (December 29, 2005). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=562521 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.562521
As the article linked below will tell you (it will appear in the November 2006, Stetson Law Review), housing now enjoys--not minimum scrutiny any longer--but rather, direct scrutiny. An involuntary deprivation must now articulately facilitate a frequent government purpose. That is a higher level than minimum scrutiny, under which an involuntary deprivation of housing need only bear a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose.
The Ratner project is going forward only because eminent domain is exercised under minimum scrutiny. However, the project fails to meet the direct scrutiny standard.
If you have a lawyer who has the brains to challenge the eminent domain action on the basis that housing enjoys direct scrutiny, that will be the end of the threat.
Cordially yours,
John Ryskamp
Ryskamp, John Henry, "Housing in the New Constitution" (December 29, 2005). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=562521 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.562521