ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, January 3, 1996 TAG: 9601030050
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
GOVERNMENT regulation got you down?
Too much cost involved in negotiating the currents and shoals of government restrictions?
Weary of the lawsuits they spawn?
To say nothing of the bureaucracy?
A property-rights movement that demands government compensation of owners for any loss of value to their property caused by government regulation in fact promises more of the above - much more of the above.
As the Senate prepares to take up such so-called takings legislation (a version of which already has passed in the House), it is instructive to note that the supposed grass-roots demand for absolute protection of property rights shows little evidence of popularity at the grass roots.
That, after all, is where all the green stuff would have had to come from if Washington state voters had approved a referendum to set up an elaborate assessment and compensation system for landowners any time a state or local regulation - even to control harmful activities that would pollute others' property - reduced the market value of their land. Taxpayers said sorry, but no - by a 60-40 percent vote.
Arizona voters defeated a referendum for mandatory impact-assessments by the same margin.
Presumably, voters in those states will continue to allow property owners to keep the considerable increases in land values generated by public spending on such common assets as roads and water and sewer lines.
Washington Post columnist Neal Peirce the other day cited a study by the University of Washington's Institute for Public Policy, which roughly projected what Washington state's takings law would have cost. Over several years, localities would have paid $305 million to almost $1 billion in assessment costs alone; the state, $1 billion for assessments and $3.8-11 billion in compensation to property owners.
And who supported the "takings" campaign there? Builders, developers, real-estate interests, timber companies. It's no wonder that lawmakers thus far have been more favorably inclined toward "takings" legislation than an electorate properly wary of being taken.
Some state legislatures have embraced the concept with gusto. In both Mississippi and Louisiana, property owners now must be compensated by taxpayers for loss caused by state agriculture and timber regulations. Florida requires mediation and compensation if a landowner bears an "inordinate burden" - a lawyer's dream phrase if ever there was one.
In fact, property rights already are protected, both from uncompensated taking and from the negative effects some property owners can suffer if others - downwind, downstream or next door - are not subjected to appropriate but uncompensated regulation.
America's regulatory burden is excessive - too complicated, too costly. Takings laws are not the way to relieve it.
LENGTH: Medium: 56 linesby CNB