Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T05:56:50.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Law Unbounded? Property Rights and Control of Social Groupings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Amnon Lehavi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This review essay follows up on a suggested model for resolving problems of neighborhood externalities and exclusionary associational patterns in metropolitan areas. The model is based on a property rights regime of “alienable entitlements,” as articulated by Lee Anne Fennell in The Unbounded Home (2009). The essay frames this model as promoting a groundbreaking approach to the fundamental quandary over the role of law as a tool for broad‐based social change and asks if legal rules can fully absorb the multiple types of societal effects that influence the nature of contemporary homeownership. It assesses the normative desirability and practical feasibility of controlling social exclusion through property rights.

Type
Review Essay
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , Spring 2010 , pp. 517 - 546
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Alexander, Gregory S. 2009. The Social‐Obligation Norm in American Property Law. Cornell Law Review 94:745–819.Google Scholar
Alexander, Larry. 2002. Illiberalism All the Way Down: Illiberal Groups and Two Conceptions of Liberalism. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 12:625–36.Google Scholar
American Law Institute. n.d. Restatement (Second) of Torts 1979. Washington, DC: American Law Institute. http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/Property/RestatementProvisions.htm (accessed January 5, 2010).Google Scholar
Atkinson, Rowland, and Blandy, Sarah. 2005. Introduction: International Perspectives on the New Enclavism and the Rise of Gated Communities. Housing Studies 20:177–86.Google Scholar
Ayres, Ian. 2005. Optional Law: The Structure of Legal Entitlements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ayres, Ian, and Balkin, J. M. 1996. Legal Entitlements as Auctions: Property Rules, Liability Rules and Beyond. Yale Law Journal 106:703–50.Google Scholar
Barton, Stephen E., and Silverman, Carol J., eds. 1994. Common Interest Communities: Private Governments and the Public Interest. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bell, Abraham, and Parchomovsky, Gideon. 2001. Givings. Yale Law Journal 111:547–618.Google Scholar
Bentham, Jeremy. 2005 1802. The Theory of Legislation. London: Thoemmes Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, Isaiah, ed. 1969. Two Concepts of Liberty. In Four Essays on Liberty, 118–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Lisa. 1992. Opting Out of the Legal System: Extralegal Contractual Relations in the Diamond Industry. Journal of Legal Studies 21:115–57.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Lisa. 2001. Private Commercial Law in the Cotton Industry: Creating Cooperation through Rules, Norms, and Institutions. Michigan Law Review 99:1724–87.Google Scholar
Blakely, Edward J., and Snyder, Mary G. 1997. Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Blackstone, William. 1979 1766. Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume 2: Of the Rights of Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, David. 1999. Social Exclusion (Issues in Society). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Calabresi, Guido, and Melamed, A. Douglas. 1972. Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral. Harvard Law Review 85 (6): 1089–128.Google Scholar
Cashin, Sheryll D. 2001. Privatized Communities and the “Secession of the Successful.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 28:1675–91.Google Scholar
Chen, Simon C. Y., and Webster, Chris J. 2005. Homeowners Associations, Collective Action and the Costs of Private Governance. Housing Studies 20:205–20.Google Scholar
Coase, Ronald H. 1960. The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law & Economics 3:1–44.Google Scholar
Cohen, Morris R. 1927. Property and Sovereignty. Cornell Law Quarterly 13:8–30.Google Scholar
Coletta, Raymond R. 1987. The Case for Aesthetic Nuisance: Rethinking Traditional Judicial Attitudes. Ohio State Law Journal 48:141–75.Google Scholar
Dagan, Hanoch. 2004. The Law and Ethics of Restitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Demsetz, Harold. 1967. Toward a Theory of Property Rights. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 57:347–59.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. 1973. Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants, Nuisance Rules, Fines, and Land Use Controls. University of Chicago Law Review 40:681–781.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. 1982. Cities and Homeowners Associations. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 130:1519–80.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. 1991. Order without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. 1998. New Institutions for Old Neighborhoods. Duke Law Journal 48:75–110.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C., and Been, Vicki L. 2005. Land Use Controls: Cases and Materials, 3rd ed. New York: Aspen.Google Scholar
Fennell, Lee Anne. 2009. The Unbounded Home: Property Values Beyond Property Lines. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, Richard Thompson. 1994. The Boundaries of Race: Political Geography in Legal Analysis. Harvard Law Review 107:1843–921.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism & Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Frug, Gerald E. 1999. City Making: Building Communities without Building Walls. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gillette, Clayton P. 1994. Courts, Covenants, and Communities. University of Chicago Law Review 61:1375–441.Google Scholar
Hardin, Garrett. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162:1243–48.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., and Honoré, Tony. 1985. Causation in the Law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, David. 2001. Spaces of Hope. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Heller, Michael A. 1998. The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets. Harvard Law Review 111:621–88.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Kaplow, Louis, and Shavell, Steven. 1996. Property Rules versus Liability Rules: An Economic Analysis. Harvard Law Review 109:703–90.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, Will. 1989. Liberalism, Community, and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehavi, Amnon. 2006. Intergovernmental Liability Rules. Virginia Law Review 92:929–89.Google Scholar
Lehavi, Amnon. 2008. Mixing Property. Seton Hall Law Review 38:137–212.Google Scholar
Lehavi, Amnon. 2009. How Property Can Create, Maintain, or Destroy Property. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 10:43–76.Google Scholar
Lehavi, Amnon. Forthcoming. The Taking/Taxing Taxonomy. Texas Law Review 88.Google Scholar
Lewinsohn‐Zamir, Daphna. 2006. In Defense of Redistribution through Private Law. Minnesota Law Review 91:326–97.Google Scholar
Lobel, Orly. 2007. The Paradox of Extralegal Activism: Critical Legal Consciousness and Transformative Politics. Harvard Law Review 120:937–88.Google Scholar
Mangen, S. P. 2004. Social Exclusion and Inner City Europe: Regulating Urban Regeneration. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
McKenzie, Evan. 1994. Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McKenzie, Evan. 2005. Constructing the Pomerium in Las Vegas: A Case Study of Emerging Trends in American Gated Communities. Housing Studies 20:187–204.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W., and Smith, Henry E. 2000. Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle. Yale Law Journal 110:1–70.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W., and Smith, Henry E. 2001. What Happened to Property in Law and Economics? Yale Law Journal 111:357–98.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W., and Smith, Henry E. 2007. The Morality of Property. William & Mary Law Review 48:1849–95.Google Scholar
Nagle, John C. 2001. Moral Nuisances. Emory Law Journal 50:265–322.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Perillo, Joseph M. 1995. Abuse of Rights: A Pervasive Legal Concept. Pacific Law Journal 27:37–97.Google Scholar
Phillips, Ashley C. 2002. Matter of Arithmetic: Using Supply and Demand to Determine the Constitutionality of Adult Entertainment Zoning Ordinances. Emory Law Journal 51:319–53.Google Scholar
Porat, Ariel. 2009. Private Productions of Public Goods: Liability for Unrequested Benefits. Michigan Law Review 108:189–227.Google Scholar
Prosser, William. 1966. Private Action for Public Nuisance. Virginia Law Review 52:997–1027.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Robinson, Glen O. 1997. Communities. Virginia Law Review 83:269–348.Google Scholar
Rose, Carol M. 1998. Canons of Property Talk, or, Blackstone's Anxiety. Yale Law Journal 108:601–32.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald B. 2008. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scheingold, Stuart A. 2004. The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy, and Political Change, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Semrad, Staci. 2007. A New Arena in the Fight over Smoking: The Home. New York Times, Nov. 5, A18.Google Scholar
Simmonds, N. E. 2000. Justice, Causation and Private Law. In Public & Private: Legal, Political, and Philosophical Perspectives, ed. D'Entrèves, Maurizio Passerin and Vogel, Ursula, 149–76. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1982 17621763. Lectures on Jurisprudence. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund Inc.Google Scholar
Spencer, J. R. 1989. Public Nuisance—A Critical Examination. Cambridge Law Journal 48:55–84.Google Scholar
Strahilevitz, Lior Jacob. 2006. Exclusionary Amenities in Residential Communities. Virginia Law Review 92:437–99.Google Scholar
Tiebout, Charles M. 1956. A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures. Journal of Political Economics 64:416–24.Google Scholar
Tönnies, Ferdinand. 2001 1887. Community and Civil Society, ed. Harris, Jose, trans. Jose Harris and Margaret Hollis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vanno, Philip A. 2007. Foundation for Community Association Research Tracking Poll. http://www.cairf.org/research/zogby.pdf (accessed December 9, 2009).Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar
Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington, 538 U.S. 216 (2003).Google Scholar
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio, 431 U.S. 494 (1977).Google Scholar
Mulligan v. Panther Valley Property Owners Ass'n, 766 A.2d 1186 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001).Google Scholar
Philips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156 (1998).Google Scholar
Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61 (1981).Google Scholar
Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Ass'n v. Terifaj, 90 P.3d 1223 (Cal. 2004).Google Scholar
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974).Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241.Google Scholar
Fair Housing Act of 1975, New Jersey Statutes Annotated 52:25D‐301 et seq.Google Scholar