Re: Property rights nutjobs


<ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1114308287.905146.56070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >These rights are violated any time an individual is deprived of
> >his property without compensation -- when it is stolen, for
> >example, but also when it is subjected to governmental
> >regulation that reduces its value
>
> I wonder if this nitwit believes in the inverse - that when there is a
> positive externality that cause the value of the property in question
> to increase that the property owner must compensate those who caused it
> to come about. Somehow I'm guessing that the answer is no.
>
http://www.alternet.org/story/21791/

Givings: The Flip Side of Takings

By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted April 19, 2005.

If the public were compensated for the increase in land value that results from
public actions, a number of public services, such as transit, could become
self-financing.

Last November, by a resounding margin (61-39 percent) Oregon voters approved Measure
37. The ballot measure requires public entities to compensate property owners for
any decline in the value of their property due to a public regulation.

The initiative's passage may have marked the sweetest victory to date for the
25-year-old "takings movement," a private property rights advocacy effort that seeks
to "justly compensate" owners for any government action that reduced the value of
their land. I hope it also marks the end of the defensive way we oppose such
measures (e.g., arguing that compensating the victims of government action will cost
us too much).

It is time we took the offense in the takings debate and launched a "givings
movement." If the public must pay private property owners whenever a public action
diminishes the value of their property, then property owners should compensate the
public whenever public actions increase the value of the property.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of public actions elevate land and
property values. If the public were compensated for the increase in land value that
results from public actions, a number of public services, such as transit, could
become self-financing.

The takings movement gets its traction from 12 words in the Fifth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution: " ... nor shall private property be taken for public use without
just compensation." For almost 200 years after the Constitution was ratified, the
courts interpreted those words to mean that compensation was due only if the
government physically confiscated or occupied the property, or issued a regulation
that stripped the property of virtually all its economic value.

For example, in 1978 the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case involving Penn Central,
the owner of the Grand Central Station in mid-town Manhattan. Penn Central wanted to
build a 50-story building above the station. The New York City Landmarks Commission
rejected its application. The Supreme Court ruled that no taking had occurred
because the property retained its economic use as a railroad and transit station.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the presidency and the takings clause quickly became one
of the conservative movement's principal levers for restricting the public sector.
University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein's 1985 book, Takings, became the
movement's bible. Epstein asserted that a compensable taking occurs even when there
is only a minor and even hypothetical economic impact on the affected land.
Moreover, he declared that the takings clause could and should be extended to hobble
many government actions.

He boldly maintained that the clause renders "constitutionally infirm or suspect
many of the heralded reforms and institutions of the 20th century: zoning, rent
control, workers' compensation laws, transfer payments [and] progressive taxation."

In March 1988, Reagan adopted Epstein's thesis as federal policy when he signed
Executive Order 12630: "(e)xecutive departments and agencies should review their
actions carefully to prevent unnecessary takings ... "

In his memoir, Reagan administration Solicitor General Charles Fried recalls that
era. "Attorney General Meese and his young advisers--many drawn from the ranks of
the then fledgling Federalist Societies and often devotees of the extreme
libertarian views of Chicago professor Richard Epstein--had a specific, aggressive,
and it seemed to me, quite radical project in mind: to use the Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment as a severe brake upon federal and state regulation of business and
property."

By the mid 1990s, takings bills had been enacted in 14 states and had been debated
in many others. In the 1990s the U.S. Supreme Court began to broaden the use of the
takings clause to inhibit local land use regulations. We can expect equivalent
initiatives to Measure 37 to gain ballot status in other states.

We need a "givings" initiative. We need to make the concept of "givings" as well
known as "takings." In most people's minds, giving signifies something one does
voluntarily while taking is done to one against one's will. But in the real world of
land values, both givings and takings are involuntary.

Real estate and economic developer Donovan Rypkema of Place Economics has explained
that real estate is a unique form of property, for two reasons. First, the way one
uses one's land affects the value of surrounding land. Second, the primary source of
value in real estate is largely external to the property lines.

As to the first point, if I owned two residential lots and built a 20-story
apartment building, it would reduce the value of my neighbors' lands. Installing a
car repair shop on my property would cause an even greater reduction. Which is why
local governments require me to ask for a variance or change in zoning before
undertaking such constructions.

As to the second point, the old real estate cliché, "The three most important things
in real estate are location, location, location," is entirely valid. "Public
decisions affect the value of real estate in both directions," notes Rypkema, "it is
one of the risks and potential rewards of ownership."

Land values are largely determined by actions taken outside the plot's boundaries. A
nearby good public school raises values. So does a park. So does access to
transportation.

Gaining a zoning change is the pot of gold at the end of any developer's rainbow. A
change in zoning can increase the value of a piece of land tenfold. That is giving
on a majestic scale. Why not tax the publicly generated increased value of their
land 100 percent? That would be consistent with giving just compensation to property
owners who lose out when government acts.

More than a century ago economist Henry George led a powerful movement based on the
idea that by taxing the increase in the value of land resulting from public actions,
that most other taxes could be eliminated.

Given the much higher level of public services and public demands these days, a land
tax cannot eliminate the need for all other taxes. But it might allow us to finance
some desperately needed services.

Consider the transportation sector. When government builds a train or bus stop, it
is increasing the value of land within walking distance of that access point. Nobel
laureate in economics William Vickrey has proposed that government finance
transportation improvements by taxing this increased value of land near the
improvements.

The concept has been successfully applied in Hong Kong. Its rail transit system
receives no subsidy. All costs, including interest on bond indebtedness, are paid
from land rents derived from development in station areas. A study of the added land
values resulting from the development of Washington, D.C.'s metro found that it
exceeded the entire cost of building the metro.

Indeed, in the past, private developers often built transit systems to urban fringe
neighborhoods and recouped the capital costs from the sales of developed sites.

What would a givings ballot initiative look like? Italics mark the changes from the
original wording in the first two paragraphs of Measure 37.

"(1) If a public entity enacts or enforces a new land use regulation or enforces
a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective date of this amendment that
expands the use of private real property or any interest therein and has the effect
of increasing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein, then
the public entity shall be paid the increased value.

(2) The amount owed the public entity shall be equal to the increase in the fair
market value of the affected property interest resulting from enactment or
enforcement of the land use regulation as of the date the public entity makes
written demand for compensation under this act."

We could rely on none other than Adam Smith as a support witness for a givings
initiative. "As soon as the land of any country has all become private property,"
Smith observed, "the landlords, like all others, love to reap where they never
sowed."

David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self
Reliance in Minneapolis, Minn. and director of its New Rules project.


.

Relevant Pages

  • LVT, more arguments against---again
    ... would be reasonable not to tax land, since there was no rent to tax. ... land is never absolute---and that includes the right of government to levy ... compensation. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Why it is wrong to acquired land with compensation
    ... The government has been compensating ... according to market rate when land or buildings are acquired for many years. ... Acquiring another person's property without fair compensation ... this action of the pap government has failed. ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
  • Re: Why it is wrong to acquired land with compensation
    ... government can compulsorily acquired your land for road ... government to enact such an outrageously unfair law. ... Acquiring another person's property without fair compensation ... this action of the pap government has failed. ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
  • Re: pap government stole private land
    ... are paid at the fair market price. ... for not compensating land acquired for road. ... was acquired without compensation for road. ... Kuan Yew's law is to rob the people to make his government ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
  • Royal Wealth (continued)
    ... The Crown Property Bureau and How it Got That Way: ... The history of the land owned by the Thai monarchy, ... The government funds flowing into the PPB increased to about 15 percent of state ... In bargaining over his diminished role, King ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)