Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wjfd9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T14:17:17.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regulatory Takings and the Diminution of Value: An Empirical Analysis of Takings and Givings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Marie K. Truesdell ,
John C. Bergstrom  and
Jeffrey H. Dorfman
Marie K. Truesdell
Affiliation:
Department of Business and Economics, Marian College, Indianapolis, IN
John C. Bergstrom
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Jeffrey H. Dorfman
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A hedonic model is used to measure the change in value of residential lots in Rockport, Texas, resulting from Section 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act. Results show that average lot values initially decreased, went through a six-year adjustment period, and then stabilized on a higher price path resulting in a positive net effect on average lot values throughout the Rockport area (with the exception of a particular subdivision). The results indicate that Section 404 generated both regulatory “takings” and “givings,” suggesting that both effects should be considered when assessing the benefits and costs of regulatory events and compensation claims.

Keywords

Clean Water Act Section 404hedonic price methodinterrupted time seriesregulatory takings and givingswetlandsC51D61RHR21Q15

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , December 2006 , pp. 585 - 595
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2006

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bernknopf, E.R., Brookshire, D.S., and Thayer, M.A.. “Earthquake and Volcano Hazard Notices: An Economic Evaluation of Changes in Risk Perceptions.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18(1990):35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, J. “The Event Study Methodology Since 1969.” Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 11(1998): 111-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blume, L., and Rubinfeld, D.L.. “Compensation for Takings: An Economic Analysis.” The Economics of Urban Property Rights: Research in Law and Economics Series. Austin, J., ed. London, UK: JAI Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Boyle, K.J., and Taylor, L.O.. “Does the Measurement of Property and Structural Characteristics Affect Estimated Implicit Prices for Environmental Amenities in a Hedonic Model?” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 22,2/3(2001):303-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chressanthis, G.A. “The Impact of Zoning Changes on Housing Prices: A Time Series Analysis.” Growth and Change (July 1986):49–70.Google Scholar
Correli, M.R., Lillydahl, J.H., and Singell, L.D.. “The Effects of Greenbelts on Residential Property Values: Some Findings on the Political Economy of Open Space.” Land Economics 54(1978):207-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darling, A.H. “Measuring Benefits Generated by Urban Water Parks.” Land Economics 49(1973):22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, P., and Warner, J.B.. “On Corporate Governance: A Study of Proxy Contests.” Journal of Financial Economics 11(1983):401-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doss, C.R., and Taff, S.J.. The Relationship of Property Values and Wetlands Proximity in Ramsey County, Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Economic Report 934, July 1993.Google Scholar
Fama, E.F., Fisher, L., Jensen, M., and Roll, R.. “The Adjustment of Stock Prices to New Information.” International Economic Review 10(1969):1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischel, W.A., and Shapiro, R.. “Takings, Insurance and Michelman: Comments on Economic Interpretations of ‘Just Compensation’ Law.” Journal of Legal Studies 17(1998):269-93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleeson, M.E. “Effects of an Urban Growth Management System on Land Values.” Land Economics 55(1979):350-65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, J.T. “Pollution as News: Media and Stock Market Reactions to the Toxics Release Inventory Data.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28(1995):98–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, G., Hill, R.C., Griffiths, W.E., Lutkepohl, H., and Lee, T.C.. Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Econometrics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1982.Google Scholar
Knapp, G.J., and Nelson, A.C.. “The Effects of Regional Land Use Control in Oregon: A Theoretical and Empirical Review.” The Review of Regional Studies 18(1988):36–46.Google Scholar
Megbolugbe, I.F. “Estimation Errors of Measuring Housing Quality from Tax Records.” Journal of Economic and Social Measurement 17(1991): 101-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelsohn, T.A. “Review of Identification of Hedonic Supply and Demand Functions.” Growth and Change 18(1987):82–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miceli, T.J., and Segerson, K.. “Regulatory Takings: When Should Compensation Be Paid?” Journal of Legal Studies 23(1994):749-76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelman, F.I. “Property, Utility and Fairness: Comments on the Ethical Foundations of ‘Just Compensation’ Law.” Harvard Law Review 80(1967): 1165–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmquist, R.B. “Alternative Techniques for Developing Real Estate Price Indexes.” Review of Economics and Statistics 62(1980):442-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmquist, R.B. “Estimating the Demand for the Characteristics of Housing.” Review of Economics and Statistics 65(1984):394–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmquist, R.B. “Hedonic Methods.” Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality, Braden, J.B. and Kolstad, C. D., eds. New York: North-Holland, 1991.Google Scholar
Parsons, G. “The Effect of Coastal Land Use Restrictions on Housing Prices: A Repeat Sale Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22(1992):25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runge, C.F., M.T Duelos, Adams, J.S., Goodwin, B., Martin, J. A., and Squires, R.D.. Government Actions Affecting Land and Property Values: An Empirical Review of Takings and Givings. Washington, DC: Environmental Defense Fund, Draft Report, January 1995.Google Scholar
Runge, C.F., Duelos, M.T., Adams, J.S., Goodwin, B., Martin, J.A., Squires, R.D., and Ingerson, A.E.. “Public Sector Contributions to Private Land Value.” Property and Values: Alternatives to Public and Private Ownership. Geisler, C. and Daneker, G., eds. Covelo, CA: Island Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Taylor, L.O. “The Hedonic Method.” A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., and Brown, T.C., eds. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.Google Scholar
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Government Operations, House Passes Takings Compensation Bill, Clears HR9 Regulatory Relief Package, Washington, DC, 1995.Google Scholar
Weicher, J.C., and Zeibst, R.H.. “The Externalities of Neighborhood Parks: An Empirical Investigation.” Land Economics 49(1973):99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, O.H., and Smith, W.J.. “Access to Tax Records for Statistical Purposes.” Review of Public Data Use 12,4(1984):295–305.Google Scholar