7749 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Life in Jeopardy on Private Property 49 cal, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific values. But where rare species occur on private property, it sets concen- trated economic benefits to the single landowner against dif- fused general benefits to citizens. The landowner, also a citizen, shares in these benefits, but gains only a soft set of benefits against heavy costs in opportunities forgone. The nation and its people enjoy 'the claimed benefits without cost, but the land- owner, constrained in the right to hold and enjoy property, suffers economic loss. The benefits desired by the landowner are appreciable, immediate, apparent, quantifiable, typically eco- nomic. The benefits to human beings as a whole are dispersed and delayed, typically noneconomic, though in the aggregate they might outweigh benefits to the landowner. Moreover, the landowner does own the land, which makes the case different from that of entrepreneurs who wish to turn a profit on public lands. Every state regulates the ways in which property owners can develop their land. The more special and sensitive the land (a floodplain, a coastal zone, a wetland, open space, a scenic or historically significant place), the tighter the regulations. Few persons own real estate without zoning and other ordinances that restrict the ways in which they can use it. These restrictions protect public goods. As such, there is no contesting the state's power to regulate. One can, however, contest the extent of regu- lations. At some point, land-use restrictions can amount to con- fiscating private land for public use-a benefit for which the public ought to pay. The question that arises is this: Do prohibitions against de- stroying plants on private land also involve a taking of property that requires just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? The government is prohibited from "tak- ing" private property without showing just cause (that is, a benefit to the public which outweighs the disadvantage to the unwilling landowner) and without fair compensation. Thus the distribution of benefits and costs will involve an unwilling land- owner, but at least fair compensation will distribute benefits and costs equitably. The word "take" also occurs in a newer, significant context. In the Endangered Species Act and its amendments, there are fre- quent prohibitions against "taking" species that are listed as