Good Take on "Takings"
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?
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]
Absolutely on the mark, Hugh. I've made a similar argument for several years now. Well within my lifetime, only the hardiest could survive on the hard scrabble of the Hill Country (remember cedar-choppers?). Riding my horse through the brush thirty years ago, I often thought how it was best suited for ticks and deerflies. When water came, after roads and electrification, more people were able to stake a claim on the land and hold on to it.
Twenty-five years ago or so, local leaders began a systematic effort to attract new industry and economic diversity to this area. Up until that time, the two principal employers in the Austin area were state government and the University of Texas. The magnet that attracted more diversified economic development was based on the presence of a youthful, well-educated workforce (provided by a state-subsidized university), a largely stable, economically secure middle class (employed by the state government), and a low cost-of-living (remember when Austin was the most affordable mid-to-large city in Texas?) due in no small part to a city-owned utility. The beautiful rivers (maintained and regulated by a quasi-state agency) and parks (set aside by municipal, county, and state governments) were further selling points of the Austin quality of life.
The property wealth of this area is built entirely on the demand for a piece of what was made possible by the state and local governments.
If it is a "taking" to impose restrictions on further exploitation of the land for private benefit, then compensation for the "taking" should be assessed at the value the property had before electricity, when few people were hardy enough to live on this land, and before any of those who were here had a need for a Hill Country Galleria.
I have not had time to read thru the links, but this is a big grey area for me that I guess ought to be settled case by case, perhaps by mob rule ie. a vote. Would we have the HPR waterline if it were subject to vote? Would Austin look like Houston if the boosterism dreams of the Chamber of Commerce were subject to vote? I sympathize with both sides of the argument though it's clear it depends on individual/ community values and a very, very large measure of self interest. No one argues with someone who agrees with them.
In a nutshell let me sum it up like this: Will the government compensate me for ruining my peace of mind by increasing my land value and furthering "growth"? What if I don't want money? Will they resettle me?
So, while it would seem logical that the people whose land is increased in value should be billed by the government I don't want to have my land "improved" by increasing the value at the expense of my peace of mind. To one person this is an improvement, to another a degrading. Depends on values.
Would I take gov rebates for installing solar energy, damn! .... probably. Would the nanny state then bill me for use of the sun?
An aside:
http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/local_news/1021491.txt