Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0022 gO <br /> <br />2"03-273-30..113 E5EE CSi'1 <br /> <br />'791 PI] <br /> <br />MAR :1 '~2 10:54 <br /> <br />. Act's implementation often constitutes 8 "taking" of private prope~. <br /> <br />Implementation, when stopping commercial activities on private land, constitutes <br />a "taking" of the value of that land and violates the Constitution's Fifth <br />Amendment which declares "private property (shall not) be taken for public use <br />without just compensation." <br /> <br />From The StranDe Case of the Glancino Geese. Forbes. SeDt. 2. 1991 <br /> <br />When does regulation amount to confiscation? If the government wants to <br />preserve 8 species of owl, can it tell an owner of timberland that he can't touch <br />the trees he owns? Or must it buy him out? An increasing number of lawsuits by <br />private landowners protesting environmental regulations which prohibit use of <br />their lands and receiving full value for that use have been upheld. <br /> <br />A bill called the Private Property Rights Act, passed by the Senate on June 12 <br />as an amendment to the highway funding bill, seeks to restore some sanctity for <br />private property. It's purpose is to ensure that when authorities issue rules that <br />damage property values, they must at least consider treating the rules as a <br />"taking" under the Constitution. If a taking is there, the property owner would <br />be compensated. just as he would be if the government took his land outright. <br /> <br />The bill requires federal agencies to assess the regulations a second time before __ <br />regulating a property to the point of uselessness. There is nothing <br />antienvironmental in the bill. It puts no limits on environmental protection <br />measures. But it does impose a cost. It would simply require the government to <br />compensate property owners for a significant loss they incur from environmental <br />restrictions imposed upon their property. <br /> <br />Environmentalist's Viewpoint of Private Property <br /> <br />The Use of land. published by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and edited by William <br />K. Reilly, outlines the environmentalist's viewpoint of private property: <br /> <br />"The couns should 'presume' any change in existing natural ecosystems is likely <br />to have adverse consequences difficult to foresee. The proponent of the change <br />should therefore be required to demonstrate, as well as possible, the nature and <br />extent of any changes that will result. Such a presumption would build into <br />common law 8 requirement that a prospective developer who wishes to challenge <br />a governmental regulation prepare a statement similar to the environmental impact <br />statements now required of publiC agencies under federal progr8ms. <br /> <br />"It is time that the U. S. Supreme Coun re-examine its earlier precedents that seem <br />to reqUire a balancing of public benefit against land value loss in every case and <br />declare that when the protecrion of natural, cultural, or aesthetic resources or the <br />assurance of orderly development Bre involved, a mere loss in land value will never <br />be justificatIon for invalidating the regulation of land use. " <br /> <br />-17- <br />