« Pictures | HomePage | Tolerance »
30/09/2005
This Land Is Your Land
When Woody Guthrie wrote, “This Land is Your Land” it seems that he had a different vision of America than the Republicans in the House of Representatives who passed legislation yesterday gutting the Endangered Species Act. Instead of writing, “this land is your land,” he should have written, “This land is the corporation’s land.” Instead of writing, “this land is my land,” he should have written, “this land is the wealthy landowner’s land.”
The legislation passed yesterday does several things to undermine the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. Back in 1973 the congress passed this law with bipartisan support, but yesterday the Republicans voted on party lines to cut the meat out of this act. Under the guise of fairness Republican’s have asserted that landowners have the right to be compensated when an endangered species is found on land that the owner wants to develop.
This action will result in one of two things, or maybe both. It will encourage landowners to create schemes in which they could develop their land and claim that their rights are being violated because they could not develop their land. The most expensive plans with the highest potential profits will be offered, in hopes of the highest possible compensation. This will result in welfare for the wealthy landowners. Republicans seem to prefer giving money to those who already have plenty of it.
But, as the wealthy landowners realize that they are sitting on gold mines just waiting to be exploited, both literally and figuratively, the number of claims will skyrocket. If the law continues to hold valid these claims will end up either bankrupting the Department of the Interior, or more likely the enforcement of the endangered species act will be reduced to nothing. Of course, this is a loose-loose proposition for the average taxpayer. Taxes will need to be raised to compensate the landowners and the endangered species will loose their protection.
Even the people who believe in “states rights” are harmed with this law. If states pass laws to protect species within their boundaries, they would still be compelled to pay landowners the compensation when the wealthy create their proposals for mountain top hotels or forest resorts.
If we look back at 1973 when this Act was first passed we should remember that the growth of Los Angeles was the motivation for this bill. Thousands of acres of natural habitat were destroyed in the name of development. The California Condor lost many cliffs that it called home to the new cliff dwellers in Malibu and along the Pacific Coast. This new legislation will roll back the clock to these days encouraging development through out the land.
11:15 Posted in Politics | Permalink | Comments (11) | Email this | Tags: Politics
Comments
How on earth is this rolling back ESA protection? It seems like common sense fairness to me. It reminds me of the news story I saw a few year ago on the man who had his yard and home destroyed by an endangered strain of prairie dogs. He couldn't kill them, trap them or move them, and he couldn't move because no one would buy his house. His kids had no yard to play in despite his decades of hard work to make the American dream come true. That was destroyed by the ESA.
If your property is seized by the government, they have to pay you fair market value. If they force you to use it as a wildlife perserve, you should be compensated. It's in the Bill of Rights.
Posted by: Adam | 30/09/2005
You are confusing the issue here. The question is what is fair compensation. If a corporation can claim that loss of the land use results in Billions of dollars in loss should they get Billions of dollars compensation? Or, should they get fair market value compared to what other property in the area is getting?
Currently, if you want to use some portion of land for personal use, you must provide other land to be used. Of course, if you have a farm, then you can develop the living quarters area and provide another section of the property for habitat. People get greedy and they don't want any property to be protected and thats how species go extinct.
Posted by: Dr Forbush | 02/10/2005
If the corporation loses billions of dollars as a result of land appropiation by the federal government, then they must be compensated that billions of dollars.
Now, if a person wants to live in the middle of a wildlife refuge, that's their choice. But they can't be forced to.
The question isn't whether any property should be protected or not. The question is whether the government should be allowed to steal property to place it under state protection or if they have to compensate the people they take the property from.
Posted by: Adam | 02/10/2005
But, it is all a matter of opinion whether the loss would be billions of dollars or zero dollars. A corporation could claim that building a resort in a swamp would result in billions of dollars in profit, but if they don't get the tourists to stay at that resort they might not get any money, or even make a loss on the investment. So, should the government get compensation for the corporation's loss. If the environment is destroyed and the corporation goes bankrupt the species is lost and so is the profit. Who pays the governments for the loss of infrastructure investment? Who pays the future generations for the loss of the endangered species?
Just because your ancestors stole land from the Native Americans doesn't entittle you to the destruction of that land.
Only the orgional Native Americans could justify making that argument.
Instead, we should consider the effects on future generations when we make these decisions.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 02/10/2005
We have courts and laws regulating how to determine the specific amounts of compensation that go back for centuries of established practice. It would obviously be bad if an endangered speices were lost or a corporation went bankrupt, but we have to consider the effects on future generations if we trash the constitution and allow the government to re-apropiate private land without compensation, clearly violating both the intent and the letter of the 5th amendment.
Posted by: Adam | 02/10/2005
Adam,
Exactly right. If protecting wildlife is a social good, it should be socially paid for. It doens't make sense to stick unlucky land owners with the bill.
I'm surprised the Doctor doesn't see this, as the ESA reforms are "progressive" -- currently the costs are paid for by an arbitrary form of real estate tax, but if the government pays for it that means it is paid for through income tax. Much fairer.
Likewise, his comment about "stolen" land is makes little sense. Every country's land was once owned by someone else. The Sioux reservations of South Dakota sit on land they stole from the Ojibwe, etc.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 03/10/2005
Dan,
The problem isn't with the compensation exactly. The problem is that the money for the compensation will not be there with a Republican leaderships who cuts taxes and borrows money to pay for unnecessary wars. The short-term boon is for land owners who quickly file grievances. The long-term tragedy is for the American that looses many species and habitats because of the greed of corporations.
Obviously the changes have not been thought through and the future generations of Americans are the ones who will suffer.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 03/10/2005
Then the problem is over-spending, not the necessary change in the EPA. It seems now that more speicies will be protected, since companies won't cover up the fact that they are living in their development areas.
Posted by: Adam | 03/10/2005
Adam,
No matter how much spending you cut you will not be able to compesate these corporations without raising revenue in some way. And, the more revenue that you have to pay these claims the more claims will be filed. The revision encourages more claims and more payments to landowners.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 03/10/2005
So then the choice is either to ignore the 5th Amendment and go land-grabbing, or seek alternative solutions.
Posted by: Adam | 03/10/2005
Instead, we should consider the effects on future generations when we make these decisions.
Completely agree
Posted by: Java Developer | 28/09/2006