James Madison, the father of the Constitution, once wrote: "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort...that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own."
Yet, the current craft of the rewriting of Champaign County's zoning ordinance, which has now been ongoing for more than a decade, contains all sorts of restrictions that verge on "takings" of private property. Some of the highlights (or lowlights, depending on your perspective):
1. "Stream protection buffers" that prevent landowners from maintaining their property without asking the county's permission to cut down trees.
2. Landowners will only have the right to erect one house per 40 acres.
3. In "Rural Planned Development Districts" landowners lot sizes will be restricted to 10 acres.
4. And no part of a "Rural Planned Development Districts" can be on "best prime farmland."
5. If you have more than a certain number of trees on your property, you will have to ask the county's permission to cut down a tree.
Whatever happened to freedom and property rights? Half of Champaign-Urbana was built on "best prime farmland"...if it's that sacred, shouldn't we knock down all our houses and plant corn? If a farmer can make more money doing something other than farm on his "best prime farmland," why should the government tell him he can't do it?
First, you must get past the antiquated notion that the land belongs to the occupant. How arrogant, to assume that you could own part of Mother Earth. The land belongs to us all; and evil, greedy, overly wealthy "landowners" are merely custodians. Occupants rent the land from the government. Don't believe me? Try not paying your property tax and see how long the landlord lets you stay.
Second, if we (the landlords who own the property) allowed occupants to do whatever they wanted to our land, they would simply decrease its worth to society by clearing valuable brush areas, building unsightly and overpriced homes, and attempting to actively manage the forests on the property themselves. Surely anyone can see the futility of such things. They claim the houses are for their growing families, but the real need is probably just to show off to their wealthy suburban friends. And only with the wisdom of a duly appointed official can one tell which trees should be cut down to allow the others to grow best.
Why, you're probably one of those people who thinks he can raise the government's children as if they were his own.
We let you talk here, don't we? Isn't that enough?
Have fun wearing seat belts.
If a farmer can make more money doing something other than farm on his “best prime farmland,” why should the government tell him he can't do it?
It's a legitimate exercise of government power to recognize that contemporary actions may have consequences and repercussions whose time span far exceeds the investment horizon of currently living individuals. The fact that a landowner can make a quick buck this year by stripping the topsoil and building houses on prime farmland may pale in comparison to the long-term cost of that action. The permanent loss of arable land will affect the economic viability of Champaign County (and on a larger scale, the ability of future generations of Americans to feed and provide biofuels for a growing population) for thousands of years. If in 50, 100, or 1,000 years you could tear down the houses or the Wal-Mart and restore the land to its 2006 agricultural viability, you'd have a better argument. But you can't--it's a one-time deal. Irresponsibility is usually quite profitable in the short term, but that alone hardly seems like a good reason to defend it.
First, you must get past the antiquated notion that the land belongs to the occupant. How arrogant, to assume that you could own part of Mother Earth.
Boyer... I'm sorry the Constitution gets in the way of your idealistic notion of humanity being able to avoid property rights, specifically here dealing with land. I suppose if you truly believe people can live without property rights to land you could push for a Constitutional amendment to exclude that type of property from property rights. Good luck with that.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, once wrote: “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort”¦that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”ÂÂ
Scott... quoting the founders on their ideals and arguments is all fine and good, but the Constitution often does not match what their ideals were.
In this case we have local regulation of how private property can be used. The Constitution specifically prohibits the federal and State government from depriving people of property without due process of law, and due to the general protection of liberty many fundamental rights regarding property are also protected in the name of protecting liberty. Such matters are in federal hands to ensure.
On the flip side the State and local governments are given a great deal of potential power over matters such as these since Amendment X gave the States and the people all the powers that the federal government, which is given limited and enumerated powers, did not have.
So can a State or local government restrict what can or cannot be done on private property? Absolutely. If the federal government enacts laws pursuant of the Constitution against such restriction under their powers to protect fundamental rights dealing with property then no. Or if the federal courts rule that the restriction violates the protections for those fundamental rights then also no.
I am unaware of any federal legislation that would prohibit such local restrictions in order to protect some fundamental right. I am also unaware of any federal court ruling that would prohibit these local restrictions for the same reason.
I understand that Madison may have felt that an ideal government would never do such things, but it was also Madison arguing for the Constitution that does allow States and local governments the power to do such things and restricted the federal government primarily. State and local governments are far more dependent on local support and in turn are far more accountable if they cross the line.
Fortunately today we have additional Constitutional provisions that protect fundamental rights from all levels of government. But that won't protect the people from restrictions that have popular support and aren't considered to violate fundamental rights by the federal government.
I'm not sure how the Illinois Constitution may affect this issue though. There may be hope in a legal argument against the restrictions based on our State Constitution. Anyone have such an argument?
As soon as I quit hearing farmers complaining about the low prices for their products, and as soon as the Congress no longer sees a need for any price supports, then we can talk about how valuable a resource this prime farmland is.
Scott, would you mind if I bought the lot next to your home and parked inoperable vehicles on it? Your argument appears to be that the broader community has no business concerning itself with what takes place on privately owned land. Yet most of us would agree that limits on the use of land benefit all of us.
I am willing to live in a society that sets limits on how my land may be used, so long as I can rely on the fact that other persons will be required to adhere to those same limits.
Anything else and we may as well live in Longview.
"I am willing to live in a society that sets limits on how my land may be used, so long as I can rely on the fact that other persons will be required to adhere to those same limits."
I have heard that argument - but how does that apply to those who just want to canoe the creek? People are looking for private landowners to maintain a scenic path for them, while providing what benefit in return?
And how does that argument apply to the "prime farmland" restriction?
If a limit is in place on land that I acquire then I've acquired that land without the particular right of use that is limited. However, if I have already acquired the land, and you come along and want to put a limit to my rights to use the land, then you are taking a right from me. The waterways of Illinois are valuable assets to the public that are privately owned. It would seem to me that if the public desired to control that valuable asset, including land surrounding it, the public should either buy all rights to the asset or at least an easement for conservation and use of the asset. The public could also buy a conservation easement on that prime farmland restricting the use to farming.
Also, yes, we pay far to little to our state constitutions regarding our rights. State and local government have far more power to invade our rights.
Lazlo,
I can understand why the gov't would get involved if I do something to my own property and it causes the destruction of someone else's property, but so what if I want to destroy what I own? Sure it can have negative consequences on the rest of humanity, but it isn't the government's job to manage everyone's actions.
And how can anyone, especially the government, weigh the needs of people now against the needs of people 1,000 years from now? In addition, have you considered that *not* developing land and building houses and Wal-Mart's may have an even worse impact on the future of "Champaign County", and more importantly, the individuals that live in Champaign County?
Given that there are no crystal balls, I think we should let people do with their own land what they feel is in their best interest. I don't think too many people would scorch their land for no reason, after all, they are greedy and will want to sell it some day. If it saddens some people to see the loss of farm land, then they should buy some and not build a Walmart on it.
This is just a classic conservative vs. liberal argument. Conservatives are wrong, of course - the government can and should regulate use of property. Whatever you do to your land impacts the lives of the people around you. Cutting trees near a river will increase runoff which will flow downstream to my land. Building a 100 unit low-income housing highrise on your 40 acres will impact my neighboring 40 acres, and the rest of the county for that matter.
And the whole idea that you're willing to abide by restrictions that were in place before you bought the land, but not after you've owned it is ridiculous. What about marijuana? It used to be legal, in my lifetime. Does that mean I should ignore that law? Hello!
I can never understand this conservative individualistic notion. We are all in this together and if I need to "abide by some restrictions to my freedom in order to create a better society I am willing to do it."
Oh, hold it. That was Sean Hannity's blurb about the wiretapping. Sorry.
"I can never understand this conservative individualistic notion. We are all in this together and if I need to “abide by some restrictions to my freedom in order to create a better society I am willing to do it.”ÂÂ
Oh, hold it. That was Sean Hannity's blurb about the wiretapping. Sorry. "
That's pretty good - let's equivocate anti-terrorism efforts with feel-good legislation to protect farm land from farm land owners.
Building a 100 unit low-income housing highrise on your 40 acres will impact my neighboring 40 acres, and the rest of the county for that matter.
Yup, there goes the neighborhood. It should also be illegal, or there should at least be a tax, for minorities to buy property, since that could lower the value of neighboring properties.
Go Cubs, if I do something that increases the value of your property, can I compel you to pay me for it? Or should the government compel you to pay it for the benefit you have received?
if I do something that increases the value of your property, can I compel you to pay me for it? Or should the government compel you to pay it for the benefit you have received?
Do we need a civics lesson, or what? Look, laws are created to protect people from each other. If I restore an old house in a run-down neighborhood and my work increases your property value then there is obviously nothing required of you (though a friendly "thanks" would be appreciated).
If, on the other hand, I buy a nice house and park cars up on blocks, thrash the yard, the house, etc. then there are laws to prevent this from happening. We have these laws so you, John Q. Homeowner have a say when someone attacks your property values.
That's the idea of law: we create them to stop people from harming themselves and others. There are few laws that reward people for doing right.
"Look, laws are created to protect people from each other."
Some laws are also created to take money from one group of people and give it to another group.
I can imagine I hear the screaming for more land use controls coming from Mr. Tapley when a hog farm asks for a permit to build up wind of his subdivision. Face it, the typical attitude is, "I want to do whatever I want with my property, but please regulate everyone else." Mr. Tapley's property values are protected by the City of Champaign's ordinances but what does he care about rural dwellers?
From what I read of Mr. Tapley's post, only item 1 could even be considered close to "protecting the value of your neighbor's property."
Only 1 house per 40 acres, no development on "prime farm land', 10 acre lot sizes - these are restrictions for RURAL development. The "neighbor" is a field. There is no one to be protected, only landowners to be punished for not doing what the county board thinks they should do with their own property.
Maybe they could pass a zoning restriction that would outlaw farming on this land too - wouldn't we all rather have woods and prairies around the cities instead of corn and bean fields?
Lazlo,
I can understand why the gov't would get involved if I do something to my own property and it causes the destruction of someone else's property, but so what if I want to destroy what I own? Sure it can have negative consequences on the rest of humanity, but it isn't the government's job to manage everyone's actions.
It's exactly the government's job to manage "externalities"--actions that an individual landowner can take that can reasonably be expected to adversely affect the national interest, whether immediately or eventually. Destruction of farmland is one such action. It's essentially irreversible, and all trends indicate a growing population and increasing world demand for food and biofuels. It's cute to advocate permanent loss of a national resource based on a decade or two of low crop prices, but it's bad policy. The "proper" solution is probably to allow you to do anything you want to do with your land, provided that prior to doing anything that is obviously adverse to the national interest you're willing to post a performance bond or otherwise demonstrate your financial ability to remediate the damage. I'm conservative myself on a number of issues, but an individual's right to poison the well isn't one of them. There's simply no excuse for abrogating one's responsibility to ensuring the sustainability of the nation, and it's a shame that in some cases individuals are so unwilling to exercise responsibility that the government has to do it for them.
"The permanent loss of arable land will affect the economic viability of Champaign County"
Can you provide evidence? The county seems to be thriving despite conversion of farmland into all kinds of economicly viable projects.
"If in 50, 100, or 1,000 years you could tear down the houses or the Wal-Mart and restore the land to its 2006 agricultural viability, you'd have a better argument. But you can't--"
I guess we'll just have to disagree on that point...if they can haul top soil away, they can haul it back if they have the economic incentive to do so.
"So can a State or local government restrict what can or cannot be done on private property? Absolutely."
I didn't mean to suggest that states (or local governments) should not be allowed to restrict what can or cannot be done on private property. Just questioning how far they should go in doing so.
I also question whether the county's proposed restrictions have, as you phrased it, "popular support and aren't considered to violate fundamental rights [protected] by the federal government."
"Scott, would you mind if I bought the lot next to your home and parked inoperable vehicles on it? Your argument appears to be that the broader community has no business concerning itself with what takes place on privately owned land. Yet most of us would agree that limits on the use of land benefit all of us."
I'd just like someone to explain how the county's proposed restrictions on private property rights will "benefit all of us." How am I harmed by a farmer using his land for its highest and best use (as determined by the economy)?
I suppose strictly prohibiting development of any new subdivisions would drive up the value of my house due to artificially created scarcity...but I'm not interested in depriving farmers of the opportunity to make big money selling their farmland to a developer just for my own personal gain.
"This is just a classic conservative vs. liberal argument. Conservatives are wrong, of course - the government can and should regulate use of property."
Do you really think conservatives believe the government can't and shouldn't regulate the use of property?
"I never understand this conservative individualistic notion. We are all in this together and if I need to 'abide by some restrictions to my freedom in order to create a better society I am willing to do it.'"
Perhaps you need to acquire some assets so you can see things from the perspective of someone who is afraid of his government taking his property--or the right to enjoy his property--at its whim.
By the way, how does preventing a farmer from selling his land to a developer make a better society? How does requiring a landowner to ask permission to cut down a tree on his property create a better society?
Lazlo,
I can understand that the law should intervene if I do something to my property that causes the destruction of yours, but this whole "national interest" argument is pretty weak. As I noted in my earlier post, how is it that the course of action that is best for the future of the nation can be determined? I sure don't know how many acres of farmland is best. And since there is a real cost incurred, in dollars and lives, for keeping land as farmland, we can't just make it the law that you need to keep farmland.
Suppose a study was done, and suppose the results were actually true, that said that too much farmland is a bad thing. Should people be fined or put in prison for *not* developing their land? Afterall, they are harming the future of the country.
Property owners must face the consequences of what they do to their property. The oft-stated case of buying an expensive home in a wealthy neighborhood, knocking down the house and parking cars on the lot, is a great example of why we don't need the government telling us what to do. No idiot would waste his own money to buy such a property and use it to park cars.
And I would also claim that if someone does something that reduces the "worth" of your property, then too bad for you. Can McDonald's sue if a Burger King opens next door? Come on, that's just crazy. Unless your property is actually physically affected (e.g. flooded) because of the other person's property, I don't think you should be able to have the government step in.
Can you provide evidence? The county seems to be thriving despite conversion of farmland into all kinds of economicly viable projects.
No, I can't provide "evidence" that if we destroyed all usable farmland in North America that it might conceivably have a negative economic or strategic effect on the United States. Therefore I can't provide evidence that permanently destroying farmland in Champaign County will have a negative economic effect. I would expect a conservative, of all people, to be inclined to consider the risk. I hate to resort to ad hominem attacks, but good grief--some of you "conservatives" sound like little kids mocking Mommy for telling them not to skate on the thin ice just because you did it twice when she wasn't looking and haven't fallen though yet. Rather than ask why a landowner adjacent to a river has the right to pollute the river, conservatives fixate on whether the government has a right to force him not to. It's the ultimate triumph of irresponsibility. And at some point, irresponsibility in matters with long-term consequences rises to a level of unacceptability sufficient to warrant governmental interference.
I swear, if most of you "conservatives" were stranded on a desert island, you'd insist on your right to eat all the food on the first day, unless someone could prove that you wouldn't be rescued tomorrow, or that the Food Fairy wouldn't bring you more food if you prayed hard enough. Apparently there's considerable belief in the existence of the Topsoil Fairy as well.
Scott, go to your room... mommy and daddy government know what's best... don't ask them how they know, you wouldn't understand. The wisdom of the anointed cannot be confined to mundane concepts such as facts and evidence.
As technology and science advance, clearly we don't need as much farmland as in the past. How much do we need? Well, since farmland comes at a cost to other things, let's allow the market to decide.
Suppose people go nuts and start paving their farmland. The incredible oversupply of food turns into a food deficit. But wait, oh no.. so much farmland is destroyed. What happens? The value of farmland increases. Land that used to be too valuable to use as farmland will now have crops on it. Current farmland will be more valuable, thus encouraging fewer people to pave their farmland. This will also encourage more advances in technology and science... to a point where a balance is again reached.
"Rather than ask why a landowner adjacent to a river has the right to pollute the river..."
Why is the assumption that Republicans want to pollute rivers? The county's proposed regulations only apply to building near streams (many of which are actually drainage ditches) and tree removal. Removing trees and erecting buildings is not polluting.
Lazlo, I think you're unintentionally making my point that the county's proposed regulations go too far. They're designed to protect everyone from these mythical, non-existent people that desire to pave the earth, pollute the streams and destroy the environment.
Why is the assumption that Republicans want to pollute rivers?
Perhaps because virtually all of the political opposition to environmental regulation in the last forty years, whether it be air quality, water quality, mitigation of global warming, or anything else, has come from the Republican party. It's too bad, because protecting the environment is fundamental to ensuring long-term economic opportunity, which seems to me the prime directive of conservatism. I'm not sure when the party of Theodore Roosevelt (probably the most forward-thinking leader this nation has ever had when it comes to responsibility for the environment) decided to start viewing environmental protection as a liberal conspiracy, but in the long run, environmental protection isn't about making sure hippies have a virgin forest to sit in and hug trees and smoke pot. It's about keeping New York, Washington and Miami above water, and prioritizing the long-term availability of safe air, water, food and energy for future generations of Americans above short-term economic considerations. I'd like nothing better than to hear that the Republican party was willing to start addressing these critical issues (or at least to stop actively opposing the efforts of others to address them) but I'm not holding my breath.
(Frankly, this spectacular irresponsibility on environmental issues is the primary reason why I can't support the GOP, despite being a conservative on a lot of other issues. I don't like the "religious right" or corporate welfare either, but if 100 years from now ocean levels are 20' higher and there's not enough arable land to feed 10 billion people, it won't much matter whether abortion is illegal or or what your tax rates are. Environmental sustainability is one issue I consider too important to be a political football.)
Your argument is that a little bit of damage here and there won't hurt, and that regulations designed to minimize that damage are paranoid and overreaching. Yet I don't hear you suggesting any alternative other than continued adherence to the "don't worry, be happy" doctrine. Anyone who's been paying attention to scientific and economic reality and can think ahead more than 20 years recognizes the obvious problems with that approach.
Lazlo said,
"Why is the assumption that Republicans want to pollute rivers?
Perhaps because virtually all of the political opposition to environmental regulation in the last forty years, whether it be air quality, water quality, mitigation of global warming, or anything else, has come from the Republican party"
Lazlo, that is either completely made up, completely ignorant, or completely a lie.
Robert Byrd, your KKK wizard of a Senator, has nearly single-handedly destroyed his once beautiful state by promoting coal over people.
Quit throwing firebombs, start using facts.
Robert Byrd, your KKK wizard of a Senator, has nearly single-handedly destroyed his once beautiful state by promoting coal over people.
Congratulations--you found an environmentally irresponsible Democrat. Maybe not as irresponsible as Jim Inhofe (chairman of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works) saying "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," but still enough to keep him from getting many votes from the Sierra Club. Therefore...what?
The League of Conservation Voters' "National Environmental Scorecard" would not be a good place to start if you're mounting a defense of the Republicans as defenders of the environment. The LCV has graded every member of Congress since 1971. Save yourself some time--do the math on the 2005 scorecard; it doesn't get much better as you go back. But since you're looking for "facts," here you go:
Past Scorecards
I don't know what else you expect me to say, except that virtually every environmental organization on the planet that isn't a front group for industry or for the Republican Party deplores the GOP's post-Nixon environmental record. Come on, you know the drill: evil liberal academic nanny-stating elites like Clinton advance commie proposals to strengthen environmental protections; God-fearing freedom-loving free-market capitalists like Bush advance patriotic proposals to roll them back. Feel free to continue wasting your time playing "bash the liberal" (with a non-liberal, I might add), but if you're actually interested in the continued viability of the planet you might try opening your eyes to what the party you've been supporting has been up to for the past few decades. The GOP certainly isn't the entirety of the problem, but it hasn't been acting much like part of the solution, either.
Having already argued that environmental sustainability should transcend republican/democrat red-state/blue-state us/them bashing, I don't see much point in this thread degenerating into exactly that.
Lazlo,
Do you feel that Republicans are:
a) evil
b) stupid
You cannot step outside of your own arrogance to realize that maybe... just maybe... the path to global sustenance is not through protection of farmland by the government. Since you cannot do this, you think anyone opposed to such restrictions by the government is either an ignorant child or some kind of villain straight out of a comic book.
You mocked someone for asking you to provide evidence, and you have ignored my suggestions that it may not be possible to know what amount of farmland is best for the long-term health of the "planet".
Has this wisdom been given to you by God? From your comment about your disdain for the "religious right" I doubt it.
Given that the amount of farmland is just one factor in determining how much food is produced, and that food is just one factor that contributes to quality of life, your firm belief in governmental protection of farmland seems unfounded.
At any rate, if you truly believe that farmland is endangered, you should buy some. Just imagine how rich you and your family will be when you own the last 40 acres of farmland in the world!
Lazlo,
For what it's worth, I know a lot of Republicans and I don't know any who advocate unlimited pollution of our air and water.
The environment has become an endlessly exploitable issue for liberals, because all they have to do is advocate legislation that goes farther than conservatives are willing to support (e.g., 1 part per trillion instead of 1 part per billion of toxin XYZ in the water supply), and they can manufacture at their whim a horrible Republican environmental voting record to show voters at election time.
Your arguments sound like the typical liberal environmental spin--if you don't support any and all environmental legislation (regardless of how extreme) you are anti-environment. Liberals play the same game with Medicare/Medicaid and education spending...
In regard to "global warming," there is still division within the scientific community as to whether it is occurring or whether humans are significant contributors to the phenomenon. I, personally, don't believe the alarmists on the issue. (Perhaps history will show that I was wrong.) On a sidenote, I think it's amusing that so many of the people who believe in global warming also believe the earth has survived for 5 billion years, enduring periodic ice ages (that must not have been caused by people because they weren't supposed to have evolved yet) and likely other non-human-induced phenomena far more extreme than a couple of degree fluctuation in air temperature.
I think most Republicans support common sense environmental (and zoning) regulations. But I'm not easily swayed by alarmist dogma, because every time the end of the world has been predicted the doomsayers, they have been proven wrong (remember how the Exxon Valdez spill permanently ruined Prince William Sound? remember the film strips we saw in grade school about green house gases causing another ice age to begin in the early 2000s? remember how nuclear power plants were going to ruin the planet? I could go on). The fact that the global warming doomsayers have moved their timeline out far enough that no one can prove them wrong within our lifetimes doesn't (in my opinion) constitute an argument for giving them the benefit of the doubt.
I guess I'm not so much "don't worry, be happy"...but maybe "don't be paranoid, be happy." :-)
"Come on, you know the drill: evil liberal academic nanny-stating elites like Clinton advance commie proposals to strengthen environmental protections; God-fearing freedom-loving free-market capitalists like Bush advance patriotic proposals to roll them back."
Lazlo, these environmental regulations don't exist in a vacuum - there are tradeoffs with these things. How about the banning of DDT? Is/was there a risk that this stuff could harm animals and humans? Yes. And what was the risk if the stuff was banned? Well, we have found out that the result is thousands (maybe millions) of people dead from malaria because a cost-effective replacement to kill mosquitos is not available (in poor countries). What about stuff in our water? Is it worth $1 per gallon to take the exposure to chemical-X from 1 part per 1 million to 1 part per 10 million? What about $10 per gallon? Does it matter if the risk from exposure at 1 part per million is a .0001% increase in breast cancer? What if it means that the Lazlo township water district can't afford to make the requirement, forcing all the previous users to revert to well water?
Its not just about passing legislation that feels good, but actually assessing the cost/benefits and results.
I'm more than willing to consider the relative merits of various environmental regulations. I appreciate RSW's comments on tradeoffs and unintended consequences of regulation, which as far as I am concerned are very legitimate. Perhaps if the original post had raised such issues rather than merely rejecting the proposed regulations as an unjustified assault on property rights, the tone of this exchange could have been different. There are tradeoffs and consequences attached to the exercise of property rights as well, which is why responsible land use regulations are important in the first place.
I'm well aware that I'm wasting my time trying to convince this audience, so I'll close by saying that I respect those who oppose regulation when their opposition is informed by a legitimate and honest cost/risk/benefits analysis. But such an analysis has to consider overall, perpetual cost, risk and benefits--not just next quarter, or next year, or the next 10 years. There's a big difference between reversible and irreversible actions, and most of the folks beating their chests about property rights don't come across as understanding that concept. Global warming is a good example--in your cost/risk/benefit analysis, how are you pricing the risk of submerging the majority of America's coastal cities? I'm guessing you're not. If you're opposing efforts to limit CO2 emissions since scientists haven't proven to you that there's a 100% chance of a 20' rise in ocean levels by 2100, I certainly hope you're not buying homeowners' insurance, because there's certainly not a 100% chance your house will burn down this year.