Apr 242002
Ribstone Pippin has some astute analysis of the Tahoe-Sierra case that I fumed about earlier today. In particular, he notes the absurdity of a hard and fast distinction between temporary and permanent takings. He writes:
Experience shows that what turns out to be permanent and what turns out to be temporary is not an easy distinction for the courts to make ex ante. Common sense, therefore, suggests that all takings be compensated for the duration of the actual deprivation of use.
Yup.
