Suchergebnisse

Governments often used the promise of land as a means to implement policy. Whether the land was in the form of a large grant to a successful explorer, or in the offer of a homestead on the frontier, the motive for such grants was seldom entirely altruistic. Most grants contained stipulations for settlement and cultivation because a growing population was necessary for economic development. Rulers of Florida also offered land grants to encourage a particular religion, to protect shipping, or to establish protection against Indian attacks. When Florida became part of the United States, large sections of the territory were already claimed under various land grants made by Spain or Great Britain. Succeeding United States governments continued to grant land to individuals or companies to stimulate internal improvements or to increase population. In the hands of developers, land grants usually had the desired effect, but in the hands of speculators they tended to decrease population growth. The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of land grants on population growth in Orange County, Florida.

ABSTRACT: This article, which is part of the North–South Legal Mapping Project, considers land law and land use in each jurisdiction on the island of Ireland. The first part provides a sketch of the basic structures of land law, identifying a remarkable level of convergence (or, more accurately, absence of divergence), which is only partially qualified by recent comprehensive land law reform in Ireland, notwithstanding the absence of comparable reforms in Northern Ireland. The second part considers land use, where there is greater (and increasing) potential for divergence, particularly in environmental governance. The article sketches and explains core influencing factors that have shaped the evolution of environmental governance on the island to date, before considering how Brexit and subsequent developments impact regulatory alignment across the island. It focuses on the issue of water protection and river basin management, in light of the three transboundary river basins on the island.

A compilation of fifteen papers presented before a Conference on the Commonwealth's Land Use, plus one additional paper. This Virginia-oriented publication contains papers concerning the developing state-level land-use decisionmaking process, the function of state and local government in land-use decisions, the federal land-use concerns, the alternatives for administering state land-use policy, the development of land-use policy in the Commonwealth, the Virginia Supreme Court's decisions relating to land use, the impact of court decisions on growth management, the open-space regulations of some local governments, the land-use issues affecting development of low- and moderate income housing, the issues associated with interbasin water transfer, the status of areawide waste treatment control, and the American Law Institute's Model Land Development Code. ; edited by J. Paxton Marshall and Waldon R. Kerns ; Proceedings of a conference held on December 2-3, 1975, in Charlottesville, Virginia, sponsored by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Extension Division and the Virginia Water Resources Research Center.

This report is a part of the results of the EU project TRANSLAND (see Berichte aus dem Institut für Raumplanung 47). The project investigated innovative approaches to the integration of land-use and transport planning in urban regions. The report presents engineering, economic and social-science based theories and empirical studies to explain the interaction between land use and transport - that land use determines traffic flows and that transport infrastructure changes land-use patterns. In addition the report provides an overview of the state of the art of computer models for the simulation of land use and transport. Based on these theories and models the effectiveness of policies to influence land use and transport in urban regions is assessed.

Debates about land use federalism — like those about federalism more broadly — often focus on whether policies and priorities ought to be set at the national or local level. But such categorical judgments about national intervention are inadequate because they obscure the diversity of mechanisms by which nationalization can and does occur. This Article draws attention to the importance of this underappreciated legislative design choice and develops a framework within which to evaluate it. This Article observes that nationalization can take the form of rules that either displace local decisionmaking or channel it, and that those rules can be implemented either by fiat or by way of incentive. These are not equivalent in terms of their effects on local democracy. Quite the contrary: the threat to the values of local democracy that motivate land use federalism arises primarily from decision-displacing fiat nationalizations — a tool that is likely unnecessary for most categories of land use goals. On the other hand, national action that channels land use decisionmaking or that incentivizes outcomes can achieve its ends while avoiding pernicious effects on local democracy. In fact, these forms of national action can even enhance local democracy. By confronting the full range of nationalizing options and accounting for their varied democratic impacts, this Article offers a solution to the federalist–nationalist dilemma in land use law, and may chart a path through the same thicket in other contexts.