They Paved Paradise, And Put In A Parking Lot

Private property rights are a fundamental part of the underlying legal basis of every successful government throughout history. On a very general basis, if you show me a listing of the rights that the citizens of a given country enjoy relating to the ownership of private property, particularly real estate, I can tell you a good deal about the health and output of the resulting economy on a per capita basis.

Historically, in communist, socialist, and fascist countries where the government controlled or limited their residents’ property rights, there has always been a corresponding reduction in the economic output and quantity of individual wealth generated. If you can’t acquire the right to own “stuff”, why work--other than to avoid the threat of a taskmaster’s whip? Further, why expend your best efforts when just showing up will do?

In the United States, our government has recognized the citizens right to very broad based property rights protections under the law, beginning with the Constitution and filtering down through state and local governments. Unfortunately, like every other freedom in this country, there are a number of forms of infringement that continue to creep into our lives on a yearly basis.

Take zoning laws, for instance. Thomas Sowell makes an excellent argument for the reality of zoning laws contributing to the high cost of homes in California. Once you get your own piece of paradise, you don’t want your neighbors being too close by or putting in trailers lest you have to look at their laundry hanging on the line outside.

Zoning laws, or the lack thereof, have been huge issues in the last two places I have owned property and/or resided, Mexico Beach, Florida and St. Simons Island, Georgia. Both locals are adjacent to the beach. One property was about three blocks from the shoreline, while the current one is a mile from the waves and a few hundred yards from a salt marsh. The local officials in both locations are constantly considering zoning requests and the value a given owner can expect to command for a given piece of property rises and falls with the banging of the gavel of local despots on the city council or zoning board. The zoning for both lands changed radically over the years, severely limiting my options for development.

Who are these people to tell me what I can do with my land? Is it my land or isn’t it? How can you change the rules on me after I already own it? The tendency here in the Golden Isles, like most coastal areas, is a constant conflict between occupancy densities versus the rising cost of land. The problem is, the very laws that the government enacts to encourage green space and lower density at the same time serves to increase the price of land and increase the occupancy density in spite of the enforced property line setbacks and building height restrictions they demand. "If I can only build four stories high, I’m going to by God cover as much of the property as I can with as many units as I can" is the developers attitude.

Another, more abusive trend is embodied in the change being made nationally in the interpretation of eminent domain laws. Historically, the concept of eminent domain was used to force the owner of land needed for public use like a roadway or utility line to sell or otherwise grant easement rights to the government or a so called “public” utility in order to meet the needs of the public good. How things have changed.

Take the little central Alabama city of Alabaster, Alabama, for instance. Alabaster sits adjacent to Interstate 65 just south of Birmingham. The city and the county is an exurb that is still mainly a bedroom community for Birmingham. There are several county roads that have interchanges where they cross I-65. A developer has decided that he wants to build a shopping center including a Super Wall Mart at one of the interchanges. The problem is that the owners of some of the land the developer wanted liked their little piece of paradise and didn’t want to sell.

So what did the developer do? Did he find another piece of land at another intersection to buy or make the owners a price offer that they couldn’t refuse? Noooooo. The developer went to the City and told them about all of the property and sales taxes they were missing out on by not having a Wall Mart in town. He then let the city do his dirty work for him. The city followed the national trend and used the idea of increasing the tax digest as “public use,” condemned the land, forced the owners to sell, then turned around and sold the coveted land to the developer for use in the shopping center project. Their attitude was basically, "tough shiskey."

There are a number of initiatives at the state level to change laws making this form of theft easier to achieve. I don’t have the time or the energy to talk about every state’s efforts, but I encourage you to follow your local news and contact your state politicians to express your outrage if you can. Remember, private property rights are fundamental to our freedoms, and this infringement isn’t John Ashcroft’s fault.


Update: November 13, 2004

George will has a nice editorial in the Washington Post that addresses this issue. I hope the Supreme Court will hear the Connecticut case and put an end to this theft.