March 2007 Archives

A giant storm came through this morning. On the radio I heard of a tornado in Bee Cave! I got out with the DV cam between two downpours. There's tons of water crashing everywhere. Video below:

I've remarked on property owners who suddenly discover that a prospective regulation to, say, protect environmental quality, amounts to an unconstitutional "taking". Texas property rights fanatics got a Draconian law passed requiring compensation for most regulatory actions (excepting, among others, those regulating hunting and fishing, or "waste of oil and gas"; but not water quality).

During the consensus process for the Regional Water Quality Plan, landowners and developers threatened mightily to invoke the doctrine of takings against any aspect of the plan they disputed; and the Texas lege is on their side.

You never hear them complaining about government "givings", do you? County builds a nice million dollar road through your formerly landlocked property, why, that's government's job, isn't it?

This guy is on to the idea:

There are other ways in which government actions can significantly increase land values. Establishing a national park or other major tourist site can substantially increase the value of nearby land. Similarly, government regulations that clean lakes, rivers, harbors, or bays will also increase the value of nearby land.

The government also takes actions that increase the value of land that go beyond those that merely affect the physical features. People are willing to pay more for a house in a neighborhood with good public schools. This means that if the government improves the schools in an area it also increases the land value. The same is true of measures that have the effect of reducing crime.

In short, there is a long list of actions that the government routinely undertakes that can substantially increase the value of the land in a specific area. In none of these cases does the government demand a check from landowners demanding compensation for the increase in their property value. What the nanny state conservatives apparently want is a world in which the government must pay them any time they get harmed by its actions, but they get to keep the dividends of any benefits they derive from the government’s action.[Emphasis mine]