Reasonable regulation: Ruling reverses expansion of property rights

the Register Guard ^ | 12 May02 | A Register Guard editorial

[Glutton]

Reasonable regulation: Ruling reverses expansion of property rights

A Register-Guard Editorial 

	Recommend this story to others.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently gave a much-needed rebuke to property-rights zealots who have long sought to roll back governments' use of environmental and zoning laws to protect natural resources.

The decision upheld a development moratorium enacted to protect Lake Tahoe from pollution, reversing a 15-year history of high court rulings that have steadily expanded private-property rights against government regulation. While the 6-3 ruling has a narrow application that deals with temporary restrictions on land use, it should nonetheless help protect the public interest against radical interpretations of the "takings" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The clause of the Fifth Amendment stating that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation" traditionally was applied to government condemnation of land for uses ranging from roadways to parks. In recent years, however, a potent combination of property rights activists and developers has argued that the clause should apply to a broader range of regulations - from zoning laws to clean water rules.

In Oregon, this movement manifested itself two years ago in the passage of Measure 7, a superficially appealing but thoroughly radical initiative aimed at rolling back the state's nationally recognized land use laws. The measure was later ruled unconstitutional, and an appeal is pending in the Oregon Supreme Court.

The Lake Tahoe case can be traced to the 1950s,when runoff from development fueled algae growth that clouded the lake's legendary clarity. Acting with appropriate concern, Nevada and California formed the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The agency enacted several lake conservation measures, including temporary moratoriums on new development.

A coalition of landowners and developers took the agency to court, arguing that they had been deprived of all "economically viable" uses of their land and that they deserved compensation. The Supreme Court rightly rejected that claim, observing that if temporary restrictions on development were deemed "takings," then so could virtually any land use or environmental regulation.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens noted that requiring governments to compensate victims of such regulations could turn land use controls into a "luxury few governments could afford."

The Supreme Court's ruling should not be interpreted as an endorsement of arbitrary, irresponsible zoning practices. But it does recognize that there are times when governments can fairly and reasonably require private individuals to contribute to the good of a public to which those individuals very much belong.

---

Copyright © 2002 The Register-Guard

[Glutton]

ping

[Quila]

requiring governments to compensate victims of such regulations could turn land use controls into a "luxury few governments could afford."

I kind of like that idea.

[marktwain]

Yes, this is very bad. The court seems to be headed away from the restoration of property rights that has been slowly occuring for 15 years. If we didn't have Bill Clintons appointees on the court, we might have won this.

[Gunner9mm]

"property-rights zealots"????

Whose property is it? The government does not own the land. Private property is the basis for our freedom and prosperity. If I'm a "zealot" for believing in freedom and prosperity, so be it. Better that than a communist like the author of this piece.

[jimtorr]

Actually, I don't think that there are any Clinton appointees on the USSC. I think that two of the justices would have retired in the past five years, but decided not to, until there was a conservative majority in the senate. They were really hoping to retire last year.

[Teacher317]

Whose property is it? The government does not own the land.

Oh, really? Try skipping a rent payment (aka, property tax) sometime. Then you'll se who truly owns the property, and who is merely renting it.

[jimtorr]

here are times when governments can fairly and reasonably require private individuals to contribute to the good of a public to which those individuals very much belong.

It's sad. The Register-Guard used to have a staff who believed in truth, justice and the American Way. Now they seem to be demo-socialists.

[nothingnew]

Try skipping a rent payment (aka, property tax) sometime. Then you'll se who truly owns the property, and who is merely renting it.

BINGO!...We have a winner!

FMCDH!

[Carry_Okie]

The Supreme Court rightly rejected that claim, observing that if temporary restrictions on development were deemed "takings," then so could virtually any land use or environmental regulation.

All land use regulation is a taking of individual capital for public purposes. All of it. Without regulation there is no incentive to care for commons such as Lake Tahoe. The SCOTUS didn't know how to resolve that and punted. My book introduces a system design that can motivate the owners of property in Tahoe baisin to work it out in a free market. It specifically adresses nonpoint nitrates from septic systems in runoff.

[jimt]

The U.S. Supreme Court recently gave a much-needed rebuke to property-rights zealots...

Where's the barf alert on this editorial? This title line is a two bagger at least.

[tacticalogic]

Ping.

[Glutton]

I am of the school of thought that "barf alert" tags are overkill. Readers of these pieces never have trouble figuring out the good from the bad IMHO.

I do recognized however, that comments such as yours are a legitamate bit of commentary about an editorial like this one. So, thanks for the bump.

[Roscoe]

"It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By a universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson

[tacticalogic]

"Every blade of grass..."

-Justice Clarence Thomas

[Gunner9mm]

'zackly my point.

[FreeTally]

A coalition of landowners and developers took the agency to court, arguing that they had been deprived of all "economically viable" uses of their land and that they deserved compensation. The Supreme Court rightly rejected that claim, observing that if temporary restrictions on development were deemed "takings," then so could virtually any land use or environmental regulation.

I think this is where many fail to understand "zoning". The claim would not mean that every land use or environmental regulation would be a "taking", just those where zoning is changed "after the fact", i.e. when the property in question has become very attractive to development and thus lucrative. At this point, no governmental agency can impose new "restrictions" without damaging private property owners.

I believe that the "right of property" includes the right of property value to remain at "market value" without the hinderence of government. The market decides the value of a property, and if this market value is harmed by government, then the property owner is due compensation. Florida has laws about this in many areas.

[Roscoe]

Commerce clause. Wrong case.

[tacticalogic]

governments' use of environmental and zoning laws to protect natural resources.

Sure about that?

[Roscoe]

Wickard v. Filburn