Problem is the Giving Not the Taking
“Private property rights” has become the quintessential buzz phrase of the Nineties – and as politically fashionable to defend as baseball and apple pie. Well, at least apple pie. During its most recent legislative session, Florida became one of 10 states to pass a law specifically designed to protect property rights. Florida’s ‘ Bert J. Harris Jr. Act” provides remedies to landowners whose “vested” property rights have been “inordinately burdened” by government action. Sounds innocuous enough; however, the act only addresses one side of the issue.
Functionally, private property rights are a commodity that is purchased and sold daily in real estate transactions. As rights on real property increase, so does its value, often by millions of dollars, and hence all the attention. The supply of property rights is produced by local planning agencies such as a board of county commissioners and, in the case of water rights, by water management districts. Rarely do individual homeowners enjoy the benefits of increased property rights. Typically they are already maximized to one home per lot with the original purchase from the developer.
Private property rights are unique in that there are no market forces to ensure a balance between supply and demand. Unlike in the stock market, where the arbitrary production of stocks could lower prices and erode consumer confidence, private property rights, one of the most valuable commodities in the world, are produced arbitrarily and distributed for free. Once distributed, their value continues to be increased by government actions with the construction of nearby improvements such as roads, bridges and schools. A proverbial goose, one might say, and there are those who will ve¬hemently fight to ensure a steady supply of free golden eggs.
Despite the “Growth Management Act of 1985,” Florida counties have given away enough residential private property rights to sustain a six fold increase in the state’s population. That would be the equivalent of adding to Florida the current population of Texas, California and New York combined! Unfortunately, the location of these development rights was not determined by the appropriateness of the site for development. Rather, the most persuasive landowner to show up at the public hearing received the rights. All too often this process has placed development rights on properties that were also critical water sources, prone to flooding or served as habitats for endangered species.
Subsequently, conflict is inevitable when the property owner attempts to develop or use his property rights. Should government now attempt to limit the use, he declares a “taking” and seeks financial compensation. Because government has little or no money available to compensate the property owner, the convenient solution is to re¬strict the enforcement of laws that were originally intended to protect the public in¬terest, such as the Warren Henderson Wet¬land Act, Endangered Species Act and Clean Air Act. Initially these rules established goals designed to maintain a certain quality of life. Protecting wildlife and maintaining clean air and water are not lofty goals and should not be compromised.
Fundamentally, Florida does not have a “taking” problem; it has a “giving” problem, not unlike the problem created when you attempt to take a toy from a spoiled child. Other than private property rights, I am aware of no commodity in the, world where one government action will be taken that would lower the value of stocks?
Now that Florida has enacted legislation protecting the “taking” of vested private property rights, local planning agencies must begin protecting the “giving.” Taxpayers will now be held financially accountable for every action taken by government relative to the “giving” of new property rights in local comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances and water use permits. This includes the “giving” that occurs when environmental and neighborhood compatibility rules are weakened or removed entirely. Balance is essential in government regulation. Florida’s Private Property Rights Act ensures the protection the single most valuable investment most of us possess. However, with the protection of one side must come greater accountability in government planning. If not, a word of warning regarding the private property right pendulum swing: DUCK!