state powerthe term fee simple ownership infers B u s i n e s s F i n a n c e

Here is what my teacher sent me so basically need to choose chapter 2 or chapter 4 then add more content to it. Also he responded to chapter 3 question requesting more information

Teacher feedback Chapter 2 and 4
Rather than post my comments on the Week 1 thread, I am posting a private email to you.
1. You are only required to answer 2 chapters this week. Please reread the threaded discussion rules and assignments carefully. Some weeks, you will only need to respond to 2 chapters and other weeks require 3 chapters.
2. The second and third threads are very thin in terms of content and effort. I would suggest that you delete you or the other and then go back and edit your efforts. Please read the actual thread carefully and make sure that you are answer all the required parts of the thread. Some threads have 3 or 4 parts to be covered for 1 chapter.
3. Go back to the announcement section and please review the announcement that provides specific guidance on the threaded discussions.

Here is what we had with Chapter 2 and 4 I really don’t care which one you go with.

Chapter 2: Importance of legal description

An in-depth understanding of the economic traits is essential because they shall help to value even in cases where there is no comparable data of the transaction. On the other hand, physical measurement will only be used in case there are comparable transactions. Additionally, the economic characteristics could be used for predicting the appreciation (potential) and usages, whereas the physical traits will show the current situation.

References

Matczak, M. (2013). Legal Text as a Description of a Possible World: Preliminary Discussion of a Model of Legal Interpretation. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2226692

Yakymovska, A. (2019). LAND RESOURCES: ESSENCE, TYPOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CLASSIFICATION. Black Sea Economic Studies, (48). doi: 10.32843/bses.48-64

Chapter 4: Legal title to holding a real estate

Tenancy in common is a term used whereby more than one people hold property in equally undivided equity. In this case, every tenant contains a distinct share in the property that has not yet been divided among the co-tenants. On the other hand, joint tenancy infers to the situation of property co-ownership, whereby every co-owner owns the whole property, and none has an identifiable share.

Tenancy in common is ideal as it permits the people to pool their resources and purchases a property. The benefit hailing from a tenancy in common is leaving the property to a beneficiary after death instead of a partner.

References

Joint Tenancy Vs. Tenancy in Common Vs. Tenants by the Entireties – Dean. (2021). Retrieved 14 January 2021, from https://patricklegal.com/co-ownership-joint-tenancy-common-entireties/ (Links to an external site.)

Ling, D., Wang, C., & Zhou, T. (2020). Institutional common ownership and firm value: Evidence from real estate investment trusts. Real Estate Economics. doi: 10.1111/1540-6229.12312

CHAPTER 3

Original post

Chapter 3: property rights and the state power

The term fee simple ownership infers to a situation whereby the property’s owner holds full, irrevocable land or building ownership. Here, he has the freedom of doing whatever he wishes to the land subject to the ordinances (local zoning).

Under the constitution, the constitution protects property rights through the fourteenth and fifth amendment’s’ Due Process Clauses, and in a much direct way. Through the fifth amendment’s Takings Clause, which claims that the private property will be taken for use by the public with no just compensation. As such, the government has the role of policing property rights.

The role of community zoning is to allow the national and local authorities to control and regulate the property and land markets in ensuring complementary usages. Zoning is allowed to offer opportunities for stimulating or slowing down specific areas develop.

Eminent domain infers to the government power of taking the private property and then converting it to be used by the public. In the Fifth Amendment, the government provides a provision whereby it might only exercise this power if they offer just compensation to owners of the property (Lawson-Remer, 2013). I am for the eminent domain whereby the results could be less traffic congestion, creation of more jobs, the economy improving, more tax dollars, plus other benefits falling to the city as a whole. Eminent domain is responsible for allowing utilities to be expanded into new regions and transportation of products inclusive of oil in a safe manner.

The United State Court rules on 23 June 2005 in the Kelo versus New London that the public use was hailing from the provisions of the ‘takings clause’ registered in the 5th United States Amendment (Tirres, 2012). The case played a critical role in underpinning that there is permission under the constitution of the use of the eminent domain in economic development functions, which offer benefit to the public.

References

Lawson-Remer, T. (2013). Property Rights and Power. Current History, 112(757), 317-322. doi: 10.1525/curh.2013.112.757.317

Tirres, A. (2012). Property Outliers: Non-Citizens, Property Rights and State Power. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2166312

Teachers response/feedback. Need to respond back to him.

You have covered a lot of ground but I want to focus on the Kelo case as it is of preeminent importance for this discussion.

When Kelo was decided, did the Court rule on the federal right of eminent domain or did it rule on the state right of eminent domain?

As a follow-up to my inquiry, what happened across the 50 states and at the federal level with regard to eminent domain statues?

And, as a bit of an editorial review, please make sure that the word “constitution” is capitalized to read “Constitution”. In addition, it is appropriate to use capital letters when writing about hte various amendments to the Constitution, as in 5th Amendment or Fifth Amendment.