Greedy Idiots!

Ugh. What a bunch of scumbags.

IMHO the problem is the endangered species act.

If we pass a law to effectively take away someone's land, we should pay them for it -- nor different than if we were to build a road.

Read the article to the end - nobody is taking their land away or even taking their right to build on it, or even, in some cases, to cut down a tree with a woodpecker nest in it! They are just blindingly stupid!

Indeed - no one is effectively taking away anyone's land in this instance, nor any other that I'm aware of, under the purview of the ESA. The only thing that's being blocked is clear-cutting and extermination of habitable territory, so unless you want to turn your property into a shopping mall, you won't lose a dime.

Dan R. - it seems that you should replace "effectively" with "imagined."

From the article:

"Having a woodpecker tree on a piece of property does not necessarily mean a house cannot be built there, Mr. Benjamin said. A landowner can even get permission to cut down a cavity tree, as long as an alternative habitat can be found."

So you've taken rural land with probably no restrictions -- and declared it residential property via federal fiat (or are about to do it).

You are taking money from a private individual for a public good. I don't have a problem with doing so, but the public at large should pay for the decreased value, not merely the unlucky one holding the land.

Although they legally can do this, I can't help but think if the law of emminent domain was being enforced by the courts (requiring payment for the dimunition in value), then this wouldn't be happening.

Why would the value be diminished? I'd think that having a red-coakcaded woodpecker on my property would make my property priceless! I'd be so happy and proud.

Eminent domain has something to do with taking away from little people in order to give to corporations. This is not the case. Nobody is taking anything from the little people and giving it to Nature. After all, Nature was here first and our property is by definition something that we temporarily stole from it.

"Eminent domain has something to do with taking away from little people in order to give to corporations."

From law.com:

eminent domain:

n. the power of a governmental entity (federal, state, county or city government, school district, hospital district or other agencies) to take private real estate for public use, with or without the permission of the owner. [more at link]

Forced preservation of an endangered species is a public land use. It's not a private one when it conflicts with a land owner's desire (and those are the two options).

Certain non-profits allow for the donation of deed restrictions on property to restrict development. The federal and most state governments acknowledge these restrictions have value for tax deduction purposes. Thus the government has already acknowledged that these deed restrictions have value.

The proper method to resolve this taking is through an eminent domain hearing. If the new restrictions have not cost land owners anything of value, then the hearing will find that to be the cause and they will be entitled to no compensation. If the landowners agree with your suggestion that these restrictions will not cause loss of value - they wouldn't be clear cutting in the first place, so we have a question of fact that should be left up to a judge and jury.

Further, if the government(s) involved were following this procedure, the desire on the part of land owners to kill endangered species before their land was restricted would be (mostly) eliminated - since they would be reimbursed the market value for their holdings.

I happen to agree with the goal of protecting endangered species, I just have a problem forcing specific people to pay for it - rather than the public at large through properly passed taxes. I acknowledge that the courts disagree with me, but this wouldn't be the first or last poor decision their part.

But nobody is taking their property away. Nobody has offered to buy it from them. Nothing to reinburse. They keep their property, build houses, do whatever they want, as long as they have the papers, which they obviously can easily get. No need to clear-cut the trees. If a bird makes a nest in one of their trees, they can enjoy the view. If they want to cut that tree in order to build something, they can, as long as they get some help in relocating the birds. They are just stupid.

Ugh. That's so frustratingly asinine. 'Greedy' doesn't begin to cover it, but 'idiots' is certainly a good start.

And I don't understand why eminent domain is even being discussed. It has nothing to do with the situation. No property is being taken away. No value is being diminished since, as the article says, even the presence of a nest can be worked around if the birds are relocated (assuming that specific tree needs to be felled). What we're talking about is a wee bit of inconvenience to save an entire species of bird. To reduce it to some financial argument rings hollow, I think, and misses the point entirely.

Dan R.,
I'll repeat my question in a different way:
Has the Endangered Species Act ever caused a decrease in land value, or something comparable?

And please, be specific about your quarrels with the ESA, leaving out superficial impressions about what you "think" goes on with regards to habitat conservation.

The restrictions being imposed by the ESA does cause loss of value according to amongst others -- the IRS and various tax courts. Self imposed easements can be donated to a non-profit for a tax deduction. If nothing else, the ESA imposition prevents the use of these deductions since the easement will have no value in the face of the ESA regulations.

Land, as defined by common law, isn't a single item, but a collection of rights -- water rights, mineral rights, airspace rights, right to peaceable enjoyment, to use it for a given purpose or purposes, etc. Any restriction of these rights (which the ESA does) is considered a taking under common law.

Diminishing any of these property rights by a government is a taking of land and eminent domain proceedings are often the result. There are exemptions to this zoning being the most common. The courts feel that ESA regulations fall under these exemptions.

As to my personal views -- that's what much of this about. The ESA says that a landowner, and not society at large, is responsible for the costs / diminution of value that may result from passing of the regulations. I disagree with this view.

It is my view that society is passing these restrictions that the goal (habitat preservation) is a societal value, and that society as a whole should be responsible for paying for it. To do otherwise essentially changes the course of property rights midstream -- which violates a host of legal thought (contract and property rights, stare decisis, ex-post-facto laws, etc) which the country has generally found to be a good thing.

If nothing else, the ESA imposition prevents the use of these deductions since the easement will have no value in the face of the ESA regulations.

Just out of curiousity - how many of the people of Boiling Springs Lakes, NC, wanted to establish easements with their property? A few, hopefully, but this is likely the exception. And since when did the alternative to tax deductions become clear-cutting?

Land, as defined by common law, isn't a single item, but a collection of rights -- water rights, mineral rights, airspace rights, right to peaceable enjoyment, to use it for a given purpose or purposes, etc. Any restriction of these rights (which the ESA does) is considered a taking under common law.

Again, we realize this. But what specific restrictions or loss of property-value has occurred here? You continue to ignore that the landowners can still do everything they used to, from the looks of it.

As to my personal views -- that's what much of this about. The ESA says that a landowner, and not society at large, is responsible for the costs / diminution of value that may result from passing of the regulations. I disagree with this view.

That's fine, but I know of no instances where ESA restrictions have reduced property value. The Right is perpetrating the perception that this is the case, but I know of no data to back this up.

If we're going to, as a society, pay for land under habitat restrictions, the government should take entire control of said properties, with the residents taking the government's money to move elsewhere - or they could stay, enjoy the beauty of the land, and not receive a dime.

Afterall, if landowners are going to get paid for property restrictions, they should give up the property.

Daniel, should people not have a choice about giving up their land? What if the payment is much less than what they would have received if they had been able to sell it on the open market?

People should have a choice about who they love, what they worship, where they work, who they associate with, and what they put into their bodies, but not about how they exchange their own property?

Here are some important points from the article:

"subject to more-stringent building restrictions."

and

"as long as an alternative habitat can be found."

If the landowner had planned to sell their land for a shopping mall or school, then the more-stringent (and more costly) building restrictions would have devalued their land.

If no alternative habitat can be found, then the trees have to stay in place, and the building plans have to change (more cost).

When people develop their land, they pay more property taxes because the cash value of the land has increased. They usually have increased revenues that offset the increased taxes. When people nearby are prevented by law from developing their land, then they have an increased tax rate without the increased revenue. That's a cost paid without any offsetting compensation - Unless some provision is made in the law to forgive the increased taxes due on the undeveloped land.

If undeveloped land is a societal good, then society should compensate the providers of that good. I thought that was a hallmark of liberal philosophy.

Spike,
Eh, maybe.

As I said, I think the complaints about development restrictions are minor, and I do despise people who look at woodlands and think not of the beauty of nature, but dollar signs. And I am not talking merely about the societal good - when I think of forests I do not think of their benefit to society, I think of myself as a passerby in the awe of life on Earth, and my responsibility as one caretaker of it.

But you have a point - money means a lot in this world that civilization has created for itself, and I for one do not want to envoke fiscal hardship on my fellow man. I think the problem I have conceptually is I have no idea what you amount of compensation you're talking about. As such, a modest amount in the line with Property Tax reductions sounds reasonable, I suppose. Or the estimated value change of the property, if it's a non-negligible amount (I still have never seen a case-study on property depreciation to convince me that this is a significant amount, however).

But even if I were to concede all of that, clear-cutting a town is indefensible, wouldn't you say? Such actions prove that the arguments coming out of the conservative think tanks on property rights - that landowners are consistantly the best stewarts of the land - is utter nonsense of the stupidest kind.

So, again, if you want to convince the rest of America on this compensation scheme, (1) demonstrate that landowners on your side of the debate can act as responsible land stewards; and (2) advertise good case-studies of people losing money due to development restrictions.

Daniel,

The trouble with your post above is that it's about what YOU think others should do to make YOU happy. (I don't really believe you speak for "the rest of America," any more than I do.)

Why should landowners prove to YOU that they are taking care of their land the way YOU want? Why should landowners even pay a "negligible amount" when YOU pay nothing?

When you and people who think like you (which is not "the rest of America") step up and put your own money where your values are, (the way the Nature Conservancy used to do) then I'll believe that you don't just want something for nothing.

To soften the strident nature of my post a bit: Sure, the landowners were foolish to clearcut. Any rash action when it comes to economics usually leads to losses down the road.

But, as I said in another ScienceBlogs(TM) comment, the preception is more important than the reality. If the landowners thought they were going to lose value, on the one hand, and "knew" they could preserve the value by clearcutting, on the other hand, why, other than to make some uninvolved people feel better, should they have chosen any differently?

Homo sapiens is just temporary traveler on this planet. Destruction of nature, that may lead to extinction of an endangered species, all for such silly and obscure reasons like "money" and "property" espoused by a few relatively short-lived individuals of our species, is not just self-aggrandizing and short-sighted, it is unacceptable.

Or, to put in perspective

Sorry,

I hit the "post" buton before I was done! To continue...

The landowners who clearcut should have taken a moment to think, to really look into the threat and try to mitigate it up front, depending on how much time they felt they had. After clearcutting, they are going to have to do someting with the lumber which is probably selling at a low cost right now because there is a local surplus of it. Their land might also devalue if it erodes now that there is less forest cover to protect it.

Also, there is much to be said for being the last person in the market when there is a limited supply of a certain good. If not for property taxes increasing quickly without a corresponding increase in revenue, as noted above, a smart person could hold land for a very long-term investment.

coturnix,

Nearly all species are only temporary dwellers on this planet, aren't they? There have been loads of extinctions that Home sapiens had no part of, from what I've learned of paleontology. The main reason current extinctions are a problem is because a decrease in biodiversity hurts us humans, right now.

All animal activites are temporary and usually have local environmental costs. With humans, however, we get widespread destruction that happens very quickly, as in clearcutting, along with widespread destruction that adds up over time, as in the human contributions to global warming and ozone depletion.

Unless the planet were completely sterilized, then something would come out of the ground or sea to repopulate the Earth after we and our contemporary species were gone.

But I like the world with a wide variety of species in it, because there is something to be gained by me as a human just knowing other critters are living their lives in peace. I wish the environmentalists had anticipated the reaction of the landowners and done something to allay their fears before it was too late.

Spike,
Yep, that's what I think, and you're right, I'm not claiming to speak for the rest of America, but I think it's safe to say that there are many, many people out there with similar viewpoints.

But than you for softening your tone a bit - because the selfish stupidity of the residents of Boiling Lakes Springs is what this is all about. And if you go back and re-read my comments, I'm not saying that landowners should have to forego significant sums of money to protect habitats, I'm saying that I'm skeptical that actual devaluation is significant for the broader Property Rights debate. Please, make this case a little bit better and you might win me over.

You're dead-on with the bit about perceived loss of value though, and I agree with that whole-heartedly - only I blame the Right-wing political machine for propagating that perception.

But, as I said in another ScienceBlogs(TM) comment, the preception is more important than the reality. If the landowners thought they were going to lose value, on the one hand, and "knew" they could preserve the value by clearcutting, on the other hand, why, other than to make some uninvolved people feel better, should they have chosen any differently?

Indeed, the fact that perception rules over reality explains a lot about politics and the Right's influence in America, don't you think? Afterall, what gave these landowners the perception that they were going to lose money, and how much would they actually have lost? Would a $200K home have dropped to $150K? I doubt it. Like I said, I don't claim to speak for the rest of America (but suspect that I'm not too far off), but I'd pay more for land that's more in-touch with the woods. But maybe that's just the Eagle Scout in me.

Daniel,

I don't think the Right can lay exclusive claim to having perceptions divorced from reality.

What I was getting at is the idea that when one person thinks a particular market good is going to depreciate in value, sells and starts a panic, then others will sell because they don't want to be the last one holding the good when it becomes worthless. This happens in the stock market all the time: A stock, or the whole market, might drop because people feel usure about the future prospects and sell, even though there is no real reason to do so.

And it doesn't matter if the landowner loses only one dollar, the fact is that someone not involved in the transaction is dictating the terms of the use and sale of their property, without providing any compensation. How could that be considered fair?

Sure, mob mentality frequently prevails. That still doesn't justify clear-cutting though.

And are you seriously arguing that one dollar on a home's value means a damn???

It's not justified - just predictable. And I believe the blame should be shared by people who want the land protected in a particular state, and didn't think long enough to realize that the way the government talked about the pending regulations would incite unjustified panic.

Blaming the landowners after the fact is pretty meaningless. They'll get their "just desserts" down the line, when they realize they razed their land in fear.

Perhaps landowners would not panic so readily if the government would do a better job informing them of the consequences of pending regulations. These landowners behaved unreasonably, but would probably have listened to reason, if someone had bothered to talk to them.

***

Regarding a dollar - Is stealing a dollar OK, because it's just one dollar? No.

Actions causing the devaluation of someone's property is stealing. Our constitution and other laws have made certain kinds of stealing legal - eminent domain, zoning and taxation - and perhaps, in certain instances, it is a necessary evil, but it's stealing none-the-less.

Regarding a dollar - Is stealing a dollar OK, because it's just one dollar? No.

Wow. Talk about a penny pincher. I'm all for good accounting, but for property values, which swing a one (or ten) thousand dollars depending on the mood of the prospective buyer, squabbling over miniscule amounts such as a dollar is really silly.

I was thinking that changes in value of about a one percent would be something worth complaining about (a whopping $2K on a $200K home, for example), but even for devaluations of one dollar?!

The difference is voluntary v.s. forced.

If you and I decide that my property is worth less than what I originally asked for it, and I decide the money you are offering is worth more to me now than waiting and trying for a higher bid, then I'll take your lower bid and give you the deed.

The problem with government intervention is that I have no control, no choice at all. If the government does something that devalues my property, I don't have any option but to take it. If you think a dollar doesn't mean much, then go around to every property owner who had their property devalued by government fiat and give them back one dollar.

If you were a business owner and you gave each customer 99 ounces of the product when they thought they were getting 100, you'd be in jail in short order. But when the government does something that devalues someone's property or costs them business or makes their take-home pay a little smaller, those folks are told to quit being so stingy.

If the costs were evenly distributed, then I wouldnt have much to say. But you and I know that certain segments of society pay more than others, either in actual cash or in potential value, when the government sticks its nose into their business.

This is what happened to the silly landowners. They thought the government would prevent them from making the profits they thought they deserved from their land, so they took drastic measures to protect the value. Most of that land may end up being worth less than if they had left it alone, in the long run. So if the government had said nothing, then the landowners would not have overreacted, and the trees would still be standing today.

If, on the other hand, you or I or anyone who thought the habitat was worth protecting, had approached the landowners and explained what was going on, most would have seen the benefit of keeping as many trees standing as possible.

So where were the environmentalists before the hacking began?

You're blaming the environmentalists now??

These residents f*cked up, end of story.

"You're blaming the environmentalists now??"

So sensitive! I'm saying all the finger-pointing after-the-fact is sort of pointless.

It's not like this just happened over the weekend. Six months is a long time of loud buzzing.

And, while the residents did lose their heads, it's certainly not the end of the story: There's the consequences of the habitat loss to try to mitigate, the potential erosion problems, and what to do with all that dead timber - it could become a breeding ground for all kinds of organisms that will later infect the standing trees. Perhaps all the accusatory energy could be redirected into figuring out how to minimize those problems and how to constructively prevent this kind of panic in the future.

"So sensitive! I'm saying all the finger-pointing after-the-fact is sort of pointless."

No, my point was that I have no idea where the environmentalists were, and it's a silly idea to expect environmental watchdogs to be patroling little towns like this one across America.

And I don't find it pointless to place blame for, and be shocked by, the irresponsibility and thoughtlessness of the residents of Boiling Lakes Springs. Individuals need to start being responsible for their own actions, bottom line.

Blaming it on predictable mob mentality, as you've agreed on, is exactly right though - but that doesn't transfer the blame from them to some environmental watchdog group. Such groups are there to inform the public and lobby on their behalf, not to be patrol the forests from individual landowners.

And yes, now that the mess has been made and the residents shown themselves to be irresponsible, I hope that someone is trying to mitigate the problems. But that, too, doesn't absolve these residents of scorn.

I like that people here are trying to get past the "us against them" kneejerk positions and find some facts. This reminds me of a current issue in my town. Some property-owners want to build small scale windmills to reduce costs of fossil fuel dependence. Some property owners think windmills are ugly, maybe dangerous, and will reduce the value of adjacent property. I'm over-simplifying. There are lots of reasons underlying arguments both sides.

I'm on the Town Board and we've been crafting a law to allow construction of windmills while addressing concerns of neighboring property owners - no small feat. This is an unusually "green" community. So, there are environmentalists and developers on both sides of the issue. In fact, there's a growing opposition to the proposed law on the grounds that it only allows small scale wind energy systems, not wind farms, bringing out another whole group supporting small scale systems but adamantly opposed to wind farms.

The only way through this is a labor intensive, time consuming process of listening to people, collecting information, educating people, compromising and building trust. It feels kind of like fiddling while Rome burns. It's no wonder people say politicians can't get anything done.

But the point is, it's not simple to protect property rights of everyone at the same time. Some people want woodpeckers, some people want pavement. But we've come a long way from the 1950s. Property development is becoming - dare I say it - a privilege, not a right. You are not allowed to do things on your own property that are damaging to your community. You are encouraged to do things on your property that are beneficial to your community. Now, all we have to do is agree what's damaging and what's beneficial.

So Spike, you think people should be able to do anything they want on whatever property they hold the deed to? Right. Try setting up a meth lab, or even planting cannabis. Maybe stockpile a few hundred machine guns while you're at it. See how long your "sovereignty" lasts. The government has long claimed rights to restrict land use in the public interest, and as prior commenters have noted, this is well covered in property law.

The landowners in question could surely have negotiated. They could have made deals with the Nature Conservancy to offset any loss of value; they could have filed a lawsuit to stop implementation of the law; heck, they could have passed the hat to bribe some politicians.

Instead, they chose almost literally a scorched-earth option: Whatever "the public" wants, these guys will make a point of destroying it, without negotiation, rather than risk any limits whatsoever upon their sacred di^H^Hlands. And then of course, there's that whole "cutting off your nose to spite your face" thing.... Erosion, lumber markets, invasive plants, watershed damage, etc....