Property Rights: Not Yours

The Antiplanner has refrained from commenting on a recent Oregon land-use decision because it turns my stomach and because there doesn’t seem much point. The way that planners view property rights is so completely different from the way economists view them that never the twain shall meet.

Long-time readers will recall that, in 2005, Oregon passed ballot measure 37, which restored property rights to people whose land had been regulated by zoning and planning. Under the law, anyone who owned their land prior to regulation could ask for compensation or to have the rules waived. Landowners representing about 1.5 percent of the land in the state applied for compensation or waivers.

Two years later, Oregon voters passed measure 49, which practically repealed measure 37. Under measure 49, landowners could only subdivide their property into three parcels — even if the rules when they purchased the land allowed them to subdivide it into dozens or hundreds of lots. Under special circumstances, measure 49 allowed owners to subdivide into 10 lots. In addition, landowners who had already made a special investment in developing their property under measure 37 were exempt from 49.

Those who have taken an economics class that covers property rights — and not all economics classes do — know that real property rights require three things. First, you must be able to describe the property. Second, you must be able to exclude others from using it. Third, you must be able to sell it. Anything short of this — for example, the right to use but not sell water — is not really a property right. For markets to work, you have to have true property rights — most of what many people call “market failure” is really the failure of the government to allow people to have property rights.

In the recent measure 49 case, the landowners planned to develop their 69-acre parcel into 41 lots. They worked with a developer who invested well over a million dollars in getting the property ready for subdivision and sale. The owners argued that this allowed them to be exempt from measure 49. But the judge ruled that, since the developer had invested the money, not the property owners, the exemption did not apply.

viagra viagra online So the only option was the internet. That is the reason; all of the viagra sales http://robertrobb.com/state-tax-cut-discussion-should-be-postponed/ should be taken to have good intercourse which fulfill your as well as partners desires too. Previously only old men use to suffer with this sexual issue, generic for cialis robertrobb.com but yes men with diseases like diabetes, stress, depression, etc. measured as the wide factor of causing sexual issue in men. Well, the problem is easily treatable with some of the best ways to treat this ailment. sildenafil canada Of course, people in their 70s with no experience or expertise in development are not likely to have or be able to borrow the money to do a competent subdivision. So measure 49 really forbids any subdivisions (though the judge noted they could still subdivide into 3 parcels — big deal).

To rub salt in the wound, a representative of 1000 Friends chortled that “This is clearly a case of a developer with his hand caught in the cookie jar.” He added that “Measure 37 was never intended to line the pockets of developers.”

Why should anybody care whether a development “lines the pockets” of a developer? The real question is, did the landowner have the right to develop their property? If they did, then they should be able to sell that right to someone else — even a (gasp!) developer. If they have the right to develop it themselves but don’t have either the competence to develop it or the right to sell it to a developer, then they really have nothing.

If you believe in planning and that human rights trump property rights, I am sure you see nothing wrong with this. If you believe that property rights are equal to other Constitutional rights, like freedom of speech or freedom of the press, then you see that this is just a horrible way of running a state.

For some reason, many lefties can get irate over the idea of taking away people’s property — with compensation — through eminent domain and giving it to Wal-Mart. But they have no problem with taking away people’s property — without compensation — and using it for some “common good” like open space or wildlife habitat.

That’s like saying it’s okay for the government to censor newspapers you disagree with, but not those that agree with you. Or that it’s okay for the government to regulate mosques, just not churches or synagogues. Or that . . . well, you get the idea. The freedoms in the Bill of Rights should apply universally, not just when it is convenient. The fact that some (including five members of the Supreme Court) can’t see that doesn’t make it right to take people’s property without compensation.