John Walker writes:
>Private property is just that...Private property owned by someone other than
>yourself for reasons other than your own.
The need to preserve a bog can be debated, but not the inherent right of a
company to do what it pleases with 'its' land. Private property rights
have never been absolute. Nor is the principle of compensation for
restricting land use (although 'just compensation' is required if the land
is taken completely). If I buy some land in Madison to build a methane
plant, for example, and then the city council restricts me from fouling the
environment with a whole bunch of pig s**t, I have no claim to compensation
for loss of potential income. Same thing applies to wetlands protection;
there's a huge difference between prohibiting the draining of a bog, which
deprives the investor of potential income, and outright appropriation of
land without compensation. Rather than say that the paper company owns
'their' Sarracenia bogs, it's more accurate to say that the paper company
bought usfruct rights to land under a current legal and political
environment, which might change in the future. The public shouldn't have
to compensate a paper company that was dumb enough to buy a bog without
factoring in the risk that they might be prevented from draining it.
Otherwise, any schmuk can buy up prime habitat and bring a suit against
'government' for all the money he didn't make. On the other hand, if
environmental risks and costs remain with businesses, the market
environment will select for companies that are sensitized to potential
environmental conflict and therefore act responsibly.
I agree that there needs to be some way to mitigate the impact if a law
shuts down a small farmer just because he's got some cp's on his land...
but it's ironic that the current property rights absolutism originated not
with small farmers on private land, but with mining companies and ranchers
operating on public land. These folks thought that $6 an acre is
compensation enough for stripmining, and that the government has no right
to restrict grazing on public land. When the public - the real owners of
the land - objected, lobbying groups like the Mountain States Legal
Foundation started whining about property rights and the need to 'get
government off our backs'. It spread from there. Check it out - it's
interesting history.
>And nature is nowhere near a delicate as some might think. Mount St.
>Helen is a good example of a landscape steralized by nature herself.
>And life is streaming back into that eco system!
Well, yea, fireweed ;-) Life is returning because there are species-rich
wild lands next to Mt St Helens.
>p.p.s. Lets all try to keep politics off of the list as best we can. If I
>want to hear Dole (or Clinton ) bashing I'll turn on the T.V.
OK... but can I bash an idea sometimes? Please?
Scott.