Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- Creators: W. P. Carey School of Business
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
PACS AmeriCorps is a partnership program between AmeriCorps and the Maricopa County Superior Court. The program provides grant funding to staff the Court's Law Library Resource Centers with AmeriCorps members. These members provide self-represented litigants with assistance in a variety of areas, including with court forms, protective orders, and general court information and navigation. Their work is critical in providing access to justice for some of Maricopa County's most vulnerable residents who are navigating both a complex judicial system and, often, a difficult and emotional time in their personal lives. Now in its third grant year, the program has grown significantly in size and scope, and this growth underscored the need for a physical training and reference manual for the incoming class of members. The main undertaking of this project was to create such a manual. For this project, members of the 2016-2017 PACS AmeriCorps program were surveyed about their experiences with both their training and learning on the job. Members identified the strengths and weaknesses of past training sessions and provided ideas for future ones. The results of this survey were then incorporated into the development of a comprehensive training and reference manual that was utilized during training sessions for the 2017-2018 class of members on September 25th and 26th, 2017. After several weeks, a post-survey similar to the pre-survey was administered to the new class of members, and their answers were analyzed and compared to the feedback from 2016-2017. The results of the survey showed an increase in on-the-job confidence and overall satisfaction with training after the addition of the training manual, although some members noted aspects in need of development. Based on the results of the survey, ideas for further improvement in subsequent years were identified.
ContributorsOliver, Nicole Brianna (Author) / Roe-Sepowitz, Dominique (Thesis director) / Haught, Shawn (Committee member) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / College of Integrative Sciences and Arts (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-12
Description
This paper discusses the levels of job satisfaction amongst practicing lawyers, with a distinction between government-employed lawyers (public) and those in the private sector. The purpose of this report is to provide insight into the joys and sorrows of practicing law and provide those who are curious about becoming a lawyer with the tools to be the happiest lawyer that they can be throughout their career. The paper includes analysis of a primary research survey, comparisons with existing research, and a brief overview of happiness based research. It concludes with personal applications of the knowledge gained. Findings of the project conclude that publicly employed lawyers are, on average, slightly happier than lawyers in the private sector. On a scale from 1-7 public lawyers held an average happiness rating of 6.8, while private lawyers came in at a 6.06. Both factions were found to be satisfied in their work, which can dispel the myth that lawyers in general are unhappy with their job or field. Research into happiness shows that only 40% of an individual's overall happiness can be directly affected by their mindset and actins. The other 60% is comprised of genetic and circumstantial factors. Steps and advice to increase happiness derived from a profession or life are offered. The key to finding satisfaction in the workplace lies in aligning one's strengths with one's values. This paper concludes by imploring those who seek a job in the legal field to spend time understanding what their values are, and pursuing satisfaction in the workplace instead of prestige or pay.
ContributorsGattenio, Scott Robert (Author) / Koretz, Lora (Thesis director) / Dietrich, John (Committee member) / Department of Marketing (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-12
Description
This short documentary on the Equal Rights Amendment features attorney Dianne Post and State Representative Jennifer Jermaine, and it examines the fight for passage at the federal and state level. This film attempts to answer the following questions: What is the ERA? What is its history? Why do we need it? How do we get it into the Constitution of the United States of America?
The text of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” The amendment was authored by Alice Paul and was first introduced into Congress in 1923. The ERA did not make much progress until 1970, when Representative Martha Griffiths from Michigan filed a discharge petition demanding that the ERA move out of the judiciary committee to be heard by the full United States House of Representatives. The House passed it and it went on to the Senate, where it was approved and sent to the states for ratification. By 1977, 35 states had voted to ratify the ERA, but it did not reach the 38 states-threshold required for ratification before the 1982 deadline set by Congress. More recently, Nevada ratified the ERA in March 2017, and Illinois followed suit in May 2018. On January 27th, 2020, Virginia finalized its ratification, making it the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
Supporters of the ERA argue that we have reached the required goal of approval by 38 states. However, opponents may have at least two legal arguments to challenge this claim by ERA advocates. First, the deadline to ratify was 1982. Second, five states have voted to rescind their ratification since their initial approval. These political and legal challenges must be addressed and resolved before the ERA can be considered part of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, ERA advocates continue to pursue certification. There are complicated questions to untangle here, to be sure, but by listening to a variety of perspectives and critically examining the historical and legal context, it may be possible to find some answers. Indeed, Arizona, which has yet to ratify the ERA, could play a vital role in the on-going fight for the ERA.
The text of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” The amendment was authored by Alice Paul and was first introduced into Congress in 1923. The ERA did not make much progress until 1970, when Representative Martha Griffiths from Michigan filed a discharge petition demanding that the ERA move out of the judiciary committee to be heard by the full United States House of Representatives. The House passed it and it went on to the Senate, where it was approved and sent to the states for ratification. By 1977, 35 states had voted to ratify the ERA, but it did not reach the 38 states-threshold required for ratification before the 1982 deadline set by Congress. More recently, Nevada ratified the ERA in March 2017, and Illinois followed suit in May 2018. On January 27th, 2020, Virginia finalized its ratification, making it the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
Supporters of the ERA argue that we have reached the required goal of approval by 38 states. However, opponents may have at least two legal arguments to challenge this claim by ERA advocates. First, the deadline to ratify was 1982. Second, five states have voted to rescind their ratification since their initial approval. These political and legal challenges must be addressed and resolved before the ERA can be considered part of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, ERA advocates continue to pursue certification. There are complicated questions to untangle here, to be sure, but by listening to a variety of perspectives and critically examining the historical and legal context, it may be possible to find some answers. Indeed, Arizona, which has yet to ratify the ERA, could play a vital role in the on-going fight for the ERA.
ContributorsSchroder, Jude Alexander (Author) / Adelman, Madelaine (Thesis director) / Mitchell, Kathryn (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor, Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05