Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection
Barrett, The Honors College at Arizona State University proudly showcases the work of undergraduate honors students by sharing this collection exclusively with the ASU community.
Barrett accepts high performing, academically engaged undergraduate students and works with them in collaboration with all of the other academic units at Arizona State University. All Barrett students complete a thesis or creative project which is an opportunity to explore an intellectual interest and produce an original piece of scholarly research. The thesis or creative project is supervised and defended in front of a faculty committee. Students are able to engage with professors who are nationally recognized in their fields and committed to working with honors students. Completing a Barrett thesis or creative project is an opportunity for undergraduate honors students to contribute to the ASU academic community in a meaningful way.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Arizona
- Creators: Braselton, James
Description
This focuses on recent changes in Arizona eminent domain law regarding the question of whether a use be "truly public." In light of the landmark decision in Bailey v City of Mesa--often lauded as a great victory for proponents of private property rights-- a few sources will be reviewed to provide an indication of the extent redevelopment in Arizona has been affected by the decision. While the result in Bailey, precluding the City from taking the subject property may have been the correct outcome, the test to which the case now subjects any similar case involving redevelopment has made it unnecessarily difficult for political subdivisions of the state to carry out legislated redevelopment goals. The Bailey case only served to convolute the question of "public use" in the context of economic development, rather than create a workable body of law. In addition to providing a historical context and analyzing the effect of new interpretations on redevelopment generally, this paper will critique the Bailey decision in order to resolve the conflict that the decision created: that of the redevelopment goals of the state and municipalities and the authorized use of condemnation to achieve these goals with the judiciary's decision to greatly restrict the use of condemnation for the achievement of redevelopment goals. Arguably this conflict arose from a failure to fully understand the complexities of the use of the power of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes. Unaware of the need to use eminent domain in order to speed along and make possible economic redevelopment, overzealous proponents of property rights have reduced the issue to a narrow view of the state vs. the individual. Hopefully this paper can offer a more moderate and unbiased view of the use of eminent domain in light of the charge of the state and municipalities to facilitate economic growth.
ContributorsStern-Sapad, Zalman Badi (Author) / Birnbaum, Gary (Thesis director) / Braselton, James (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
My thesis examines the burden of proof in eminent domain valuation proceedings in the state of Arizona. The thesis begins by going back and looking at the history of eminent domain in the United States. This includes identifying the authorities with the power to condemn land and the examining constitutional amendment requiring the condemnor to pay the fair market value for the land it takes. From there, I look at the process of property value litigation and the potential combination of burden of proof on both the value of the land taken and severance damages. This is followed by an analysis of the current law in Arizona, and a comparison to the laws in the other 49 states to highlight trends throughout the nation. The thesis highlights the counterintuitive nature of the landowner bearing the burden of proving fair market value in Arizona while also pointing out that the majority of other states in the nation have similar laws. This law continues to exist despite a lack of historical precedent or justification, not only in Arizona, but also throughout the country. The thesis references different states' case law throughout and gives opinions of experts in this area of study. The final section examines the practical implications of the law as it exists in Arizona today. The law may continue to exist unopposed despite its counterintuitive nature, because it gives the defendant landowner's counsel the right to speak first and last in a trial and present their evidence first. This has the potential to offer an advantage large enough to justify an unwanted burden.
ContributorsRubinov, Daniel (Author) / Birnbaum, Gary (Thesis director) / Braselton, James (Committee member) / School of Accountancy (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / Department of Finance (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05