After decades of success (and lessons learned) in Arizona, the Model Property Ownership Fairness Act can also protect homeowners in the other 49 states. Today, a decade after Arizona adopted its own version, we can usher in a new era of national protection of property rights, fairness, and the rule of law. Thus, from the first principles, we see that, in principle, there is no difference between the full use of the significant domain just described and a regulatory takeover – between the adoption of the full title and exclusive use. Therefore, the oft-heard assertion that the withdrawal clause only requires compensation for “full” withdrawals will not stand up to scrutiny. To give a natural reading to the article, it simply speaks of “private property”. As Madison (above) wrote, “ownership” refers to any use or right that can legitimately be made by a company. It does not simply refer to the underlying estate. In fact, in all areas of property law, with the exception of regulatory revenues, we talk about property as a “bundle of sticks,” each of which can be bought, sold, rented, inherited, whatever. But to allow the government to provide the public with “off-budget” and therefore “cheap” goods, the Revenue Act stuck to the idea that the government only has to pay compensation if the entire package is taken. In the economy, property rights form the basis of all trade, and the allocation of property rights in a society affects the efficiency of resource use. All private resources are competing, meaning that a single user can own title and legal title to the property.
Private owners also have the exclusive right to use and benefit from the services or products. Private owners can exchange the resource on a voluntary basis. “Fair compensation.” Finally, Congress should define “fair compensation” according to its function: taking someone`s property is a remedy for injustice. The fact that the constitution implicitly permits this injustice obviously does not change the character of the act. As we have seen above, the raison d`être of this despotic power, even when used correctly, is problematic. In this context, the least the public can do is to make the victim complete of its use. Again, this will be a fact-based determination, but Congress should at least make clear that compensation is “fair” and therefore requires the owner as a whole to receive more than the “market value” of their property, the normal norm today. Because the mere fact that the owner does not have his property on the market suggests that its value to him is higher than the market price. In addition, its compensation should take into account the fact that its damage is not caused by mere chance, as in the case of a crime, but by a deliberate decision of the public to compel it to give up its property.
The extent and degree of private property rights fundamentally influences how people compete for control of resources. With more complete private property rights, market exchange values become more influential. The personal status and personal characteristics of people competing for a resource do not matter, as their influence can be offset by an adjustment in price. In other words, broader property rights make discrimination more costly. Take the case of a black woman who wants to rent an apartment to a white landlord. It is best to do this if the landlord has the right to set the rent at the level he wants. Even if the landlord prefers a white tenant, the black woman can compensate for her disadvantage with a higher rent. A landlord who takes the white tenant at a lower rent pays for the discrimination anyway. Formalizing property rights is rightly associated with economic prosperity. Having a formal claim to their property, whether it is land or a house, allows that person to derive economic benefits in three ways. First, it can monetize the asset through a sale. Second, she may move from one place to another to look for employment opportunities rather than being tied to an informal asset.
Third, it can raise capital at reasonable interest rates with guarantees. A formal claim of ownership also motivates the owner to invest in the property, trusting that they can capture the investment through sale or rental. America`s founders clearly understood that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity, but of freedom itself. Thus, through common law, state law, and the Constitution, they protected property rights—the rights of people to freely acquire, use, and dispose of property. However, with the growth of modern government, these rights have been seriously compromised. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not yet developed a principled, let alone comprehensive, theory to remedy these violations. This failure led to the birth of the property rights movement in one state after another. Now is the time for Congress to step in — to correct the federal government`s own violations and set a standard that courts might notice when ruling on state violations. Have you ever seen two kids fight over a toy? Such conflicts were commonplace in Katherine Hussman Klemp`s home. But in the Sesame Street parenting guide, she tells how she created peace in her family of eight by assigning property rights to the toys.
In 2008, the city of Sedona, a popular tourist destination in Arizona, made renting a residential property for less than 30 days a crime punishable by up to six months in prison and a $2,500 fine. Surprisingly, the ordinance defined “rent” so broadly that the term could be applied to buying a timeshare, DIY contracts, and even hiring a babysitter.25 Other Arizona cities are following in Sedona`s footsteps. In 2012, Glenn Odegard bought a century-old home in the historic town of Jerome, a former Arizona mining town known as “America`s most vertical city” because of its steep streets and 5,200 feet of elevation. Founded in 1876, Jerome was a booming copper town with a maximum population of 15,000 in the 1920s, but since the mine closed in 1953, the population has declined to about 450.