Juenymerey's Under The Social Function Theory

Class Reading pg.393 “Under the social function theory, the ownership of property is not absolute or immutable but a changing concept, constantly redefined to permit ownership of property to fill whatever role society assigns it at a given time.13 The individual has an obligation not to use property in violation of the public right.14 Economic losses may result, but the value of a parcel of land “has no economic value in the absence of the society around it.”
Takings under this perspective sets the stage to better define what its meaning is, when the government uses, regulates, and seizes private property. These actions are governed by rules set by legislatures. Often connected to government takings is the Fifth Amendment which requires the
His argument takes into consideration the ever increasing development of commercial development and stresses the need to consider the future impact of such developments that far exceed the original plans and regulations restricting development of natural conservation lands.
How is this different today in terms of takings and where invested interests lay we see a far turn where people’s needs for health wealth and safety no longer matter. In Juenymerey he describes this, “a “transformative economy” and an “economy of nature.” This break down considers anthropocentrism with biocentrism, and natural law with the law of nature. Through this division we can see the Supreme Court as well. Justice Scalia in the case of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council quotes Lord Coke, who said “For what is land but the profits thereof?” Whereas Justice, Blackmun endorsed the latter view in Sierra Club v. Morton, by quoting John Donne: “No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent” (Jeunymere p. 394) in the case of Lucas v. SCCC Lucas purchased two separate parcels of land
He wanted to build single family homes on these locations but was told later he would not be able to. The decisions to prohibit construction meant that Lucas lost value on his land as a result. He sued the state under the Fifth Amendment and argued that restriction of building on his land constituted a takings. In this case In this case Lucas won his argument and receive just compensation for his losses. While in other cases where takings was questioned for example in Kelo v. New London takings were based on economic speculative stimulation. While Lucas was able to purchase land but not build on it in Kelo we have a group of residents who fight against the takings of their land and homes for the sake of contracting with Pfizer to build a lab and create 1400 jobs in the area. This case became the case which continue to cause great concern for home owners and property holders. In this case we saw eminent domain