A typical case I read at school in Property is from Tennessee in the 1920s and involves cousins fighting over dead relatives' land. Yes, cue the banjos. Anyhow, last week I was reading my Property textbook and came across a case called City of Palm Springs v. Living Desert Reserve, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 859 (Ct. App. 1999). It was exciting to see something from the desert, and it's kind of a funny case, so I thought I'd share. Here's what happened.

The McCallum Desert Foundation gave 30 acres of land to the City of Palm Springs. The property was given fully with one restriction: "In the event that the property is not used solely for and perpetually as the site of the McCallum Desert Reserve and Equestrian Center, then the land and premises ... shall pass to the Living Desert Reserve, Palm Desert, California." So basically, PS had to make a giant horse stable, or the Living Desert got title instead. Well, PS had a different idea. It wanted to expand the municipal golf course (now Tahquitz Creek Golf Resort. Huge surprise, right?

In this case, PS had what's called present property interest because it possessed the 30 acres. Living Desert had a future property interest since it would get the land if PS violated the horse stable requirement. Property interests (present or future) can be condemned and taken by a government. Usually this is done to tear down abandoned buildings, make way for roads, etc. Check out what PS decided to do.

PS condemned Living Desert's future interest in the property. The result was that PS had its present interest in the 30 acres, and since PS didn't use it for a horse stable, the property would no longer transfer to Living Desert because PS now owned the future interest also. Then PS could make a golf course or do whatever the hell it wanted with the land. McCallum's gift requirement was totally voided by PS.

What's even worse is that PS tried to screw Living Desert out of paying for its interest in the land, too. When a government condemns and takes property, it has to pay fair market value for what it takes. But PS claimed that the value of Living Desert's future interest was nothing since the chance of PS violating the original horse stable restriction was so tiny -- despite the fact that PS was condemning the land so that they didn't have to use it for a stable!

Anyhow, the CA courts saw through the charade. They said that, while the PS move was legal, it was against public policy to allow them to get away with not paying for it. Why? Because nobody in their right mind would ever donate to a city again because the city could turn around and screw the grantor with no consequence. PS had to pay Living Desert the full value of the 30 acres.

Posted by at 10:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've had a lot of contempt for the way primaries were run in the past, but today I was really excited for the way things went. You're probably thinking that I should have been, since I voted in CA, the biggest prize of the night. But it's not that.

For the first time ever, I really think there was a lot of choice out there for voters on both sides of the aisle. Voters were much more passionate in their ability to choose from a wider range of candidates in their parties and actually have an effect. It was much more democratic than any national election in my (admittedly young) memory. Establishing a continuing tradition of a "Super Duper" Tuesday is probably the closest thing that America will ever come to a proportional representation system that allows voters in a national election to choose among candidates and policy preferences that truly represent their individual views.

That said, I strongly hope that a tradition of huge blocs of states voting early in February continues. Doing so would balance the two biggest policy concerns that commentators often make about primaries: giving many states a say in the process and allowing the lesser-known candidates to wage an effective campaign for president.

Keeping with a system that allows states to decide to hold their primary in early February will probably encourage more states to join the pack. The states that have yet to vote in the primaries have obviously seen what a success tonight was and probably want to give their voters the same opportunity four years from today. The more states that join the pack, the more voters get to pick from candidates that truly reflect their preferences.

On the other hand, some commentators argue that moving the primaries up so early disfavors candidates who lack the campaign funds and institutional support of the bigger names. This overlooks the fact that a small group of states still vote before Super Tuesday, allowing the lesser-known candidates to work retail politics of the smaller early states and possibly emerge on momentum.

Given that there is no clear winner tonight on either the Republican or Democratic ticket tonight, one might even argue that this incentivizes states to wait until after Super Tuesday to hold their primary elections because it could put a higher premium on those states' votes. This would finally stop the mad rush of states that have been constantly moving their primaries earlier and earlier in recent years.

Any way you cut the policy, it seems to favor keeping the big day.

Posted by at 11:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)