Abstract
It is possible to agree with an article’s recommendations but disagree with the argumentation, evidence, and rationales that led to them. That is to say, Murray and Gordon’s idea in “Land as Airspace” that the public should benefit—in some way—from a rezoning process otherwise enriching a class of incumbent property owners is a good one. In this, the authors and I agree that the risks of corruption from rezoning schemes that could enrich a select few are to be avoided. Where we part is in the unique jurisprudence and U.S. social context that would render their recommendations irrelevant in this particular context. And, as in many things, context is everything.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
