Planning, Law, and Property Rights: A US–European Cross-national Contemplation

Norton, Richard K.; Bieri, David S.

doi:10.1080/13563475.2014.965249

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This paper discusses findings from a study undertaken in the City of Melbourne in 2013-2014 that canvassed the perceptions and views of a sample of municipal stakeholders on the local law-making process. Findings from the paper also enhance the emerging discussion on the translation and application of urban concepts and law from one jurisdiction to another (Norton and Bieri, 2014;Alterman, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…How, as city citizens, can they be more involved in the local law-making process? There is still much to be learnt about local law-making, and there are wonderful opportunities afforded by our global connected world for more reciprocal cross-jurisdictional sharing of knowledge (Norton and Bieri, 2014;Alterman, 2010;Leshinsky, 2012). The time is ripe to gain more understanding on how the local law system shapes and controls what is in fact every step of our lives, regardless of where we rise from bed each morning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Touching on transparency in city local law making

Leshinsky

2016

IJLBE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose for this paper is to share jurisdictional knowledge on local law-making theory and praxis, an area of law not well represented in the literature despite its involvement in day-to-day life. Design/methodology/approach The paper not only shares knowledge about the local law-making process in Melbourne, Australia, but also explores attitudes to local law-making gathered through semi-structured interviews from a sample of relevant stakeholders. Findings The paper reports on findings from a study undertaken in Melbourne, Australia. Stakeholder perceptions and attitudes were canvassed regarding local law-making in the areas of land use planning and waste management. Overall, stakeholders were satisfied that Melbourne is a robust jurisdiction offering a fair and transparent local law-making system, but they see scope for more public participation. Research limitations/implications The findings suggest that even though the state of Victoria offers a fair and transparent system of local law-making, there is still significant scope for more meaningful involvement from the community, as well as space for more effective enforcement of local laws. The stage is set for greater cross-jurisdictional reciprocal learning about local law-making between cities. Originality/value This paper offers meaningful and utilitarian insight for policy and law makers, academics and built environment professionals from relevant stakeholders on the operation and transparency of local law-making.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Touching on transparency in city local law making

Leshinsky

2016

IJLBE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For a comprehensive comparison, Frankenberg (2017) emphasised the importance of examining “everything,” and Siems (2007, p. 140) noted the importance of understanding “epistemological foundations of the cognitive structure.” Comparative law can explore political, economic, social and historical factors (Reitz, 1998, p. 627). Therefore, contexts of planning law (Figure 1) can be expanded to concern property law, the Constitution and even philosophical thoughts (Norton and Bieri, 2014). However, as discussed above, it is important to set realistic goals for comparative planning law, as it is not easy to recognise the practical benefit of analysing all these backgrounds and contexts within each jurisdiction.…”

Section: Framework Of Comparative Planning Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sometimes, differences in property protection can be traced back to in-depth discussions. For instance, the fundamental difference in the degree of protection of property is attributed to the philosophical basis: Norton and Bieri (2014) contrasted the “individualistic notions of property ownership” (p. 10) in the USA explicable by J. S. Mill's liberalism with “social obligations of ownership” (p. 10) in Germany consistent with Hegelian liberalism. For the social and historical contexts, the question of whether certain classes or groups enjoy relatively greater protection of their property interests against planning must not be overlooked (Jacobs and Paulsen, 2009, p. 135).…”

Section: Framework Of Comparative Planning Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodology and framework of comparative urban planning law

Jeon

2023

JPPEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to systematise the methodology used in comparative urban planning law and propose primary contexts for comparison in planning law. Design/methodology/approach This study undertook a review of comparative law methodology discourse and sought to establish connections between the discourse and the field of planning law. Findings This study argues for establishment of a realistic goal for comparative planning law by focusing on the planning law's modifiability. The goal of comparison in planning law should not be to find universally desirable principles or better solutions. Rather, the goal should be to identify a motive for devising a solution. This is because it is not only difficult to establish legal values that are universally applicable to planning law but also inappropriate to determine superiority of planning laws that have been developed over time by each jurisdiction’s sovereignty and policies on land use. When determining comparable systems for analysis among legal systems that are functionally equivalent, it is important to consider the context of land use relations alongside the comparative analysis to be done. To set realistic goals, the context should not be extended indefinitely but be systematised. Based on the foundational relationship underlying planning law, including the tension between planning authorities and property owners, this study presents five specific contexts for comparative analysis: “Strength of Property Rights,” “Level of Judicial Intervention,” “Plan- or Development-led System,” “Allocation of Planning Power” and “Level of Participation.” Examination of these contexts will allow better understanding of the similarities and differences among different systems and practical application of the results of comparative studies. Originality/value This study presents a novel approach to systematising the methodology and framework of comparative planning law.

show abstract

“…In general, and cutting a very long story short, European societies have a common political and cultural tradition that is more centred on the role of society (and hence on the social pact and welfare state), on the one hand; and individual positive rights, on the other, than on the value of the local community. See, for instance, the debate between Tonnies (1887) andWeber (1968Weber ( [1958), and the usa-Europe comparison byNorton and Bieri (2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%