Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, April 30, 1994 TAG: 9405020139
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Contemplating the inner workings of the state bureaucracy sounds about as enticing as watching slugs gather around a drain hole, but the effects of the amendment to the zippily named Administrative Process Act could be far-reaching, and warrant future scrutiny.
The amendment sounds reasonable enough. It essentially requires a cost-benefit analysis of new state regulations. It does not say that regulations cannot be enacted if they will cost any group anything - or that those affected would have to be compensated by taxpayers. Of course, if some group finds that the analysis shows its members likely will face additional costs as a result of a proposed regulation, that group can be expected to oppose the measure.
To the extent that such projections can be done with a fair degree of accuracy and that they help Virginia's legislators make decisions with their eyes open to the impact - positive and negative - that regulations will have, such information will be welcome. The more informed the decision, the better.
A danger, though, is that the regulatory process will be stymied by special interests that, warned of the potential costs to them, will rally in opposition and pressure lawmakers to defeat measures that would have been in the public interest. And an irony is that the amendment, aimed at checking bureaucratic regulation, will create an additional bureaucratic step, with associated costs and delays, in the regulatory process.
Environmentalists complain, with some cause, that the amendment does not require a similar analysis of the potential benefits of a regulation. No figures will be published about what long-range savings might be realized as a result of the regulation, or what costs would be associated with failing to put the rule in place. Proponents suggest there is surely some benefit foreseen in the very drafting of a regulation, and it is this benefit that should be weighed against projected costs.
The concerns of both sides point to a larger problem: that Americans do a poor job of risk assessment at all levels of government, in business and in industry. Regulators create huge costs going after small problems, while bigger problems are barely addressed. More far-sighted planning, which recognizes the interdependence of diverse phenomena and better foresees long-term consequences, is essential.
But that is hardly the philosophical underpinning of this amendment, which was backed strongly by the Virginia Association of Realtors. This was a compromise measure pressed as part of a nationwide property-rights backlash against government regulations deemed unreasonably and unnecessarily restrictive.
The ultimate goal of the property-rights movement is enactment of so-called takings legislation, which would burden governments with the expense of compensating property owners for regulations that end up increasing their costs, devaluing their property, or reducing potential profitability. Legislators wisely chose to study the far-reaching implications of such a measure before even introducing it.
The delay should be permanent. Such an extreme solution as "takings" legislation, which would threaten the very ability of governments to act for the common good, would be a devastating mistake.
Overall, regulations that benefit society outweigh those that are onerous. Doing a better job of identifying costs of regulation and weighing them against the objectives will improve that ratio - and, perhaps, undercut support for a property-rights revolution that promises, in the end, to benefit the very few at the expense of the many.
by CNB