Regulatory Takings: Economic Confusion Subsequent to Penn Central
We've covered in the past regulatory takings claims and the benchmark three-prong Penn Central test for analyzing potential liability. We've also noted the issues involved in consistently applying those factors, and the resulting unpredictibility in evaluating the merits of potential regulatory takings claims.
William Wade, Ph.D., a resource economist with the firm Energy and Water Economics, often writes about these issues, offering clearly articulated potential solutions to dealing with these Penn Central issues. And Mr. Wade has done it again, as his recent article, Sources of Regulatory Takings Economic Confusion Subsequent to Penn Central appearing in the Environmental Law Reporter, is another fine piece of work. Among other insights, Mr. Wade explains that
Courts have confused ad hoc considerations of case facts with economic valuation methods, which are not ad hoc."
We recommend checking out our colleague Robert Thomas' blog post about Mr. Wade's article at inversecondemnation.com. And, as a shameless plug, take note of Mr. Wade's "Author's Note," paying thanks to yours truly for help with the article. It was a truly enjoyable -- and honorable -- experience working with one of the foremost economic experts in the field of regulatory takings.
