Takings Bills: Sane Second Thoughts

By Peirce, Neal R. | Nation's Cities Weekly, January 8, 1996 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Takings Bills: Sane Second Thoughts


Peirce, Neal R., Nation's Cities Weekly


Politically, this ought to be the season of seasons for the property rights movement that supporters claim is burgeoning across grassroots America.

So-called "takings" legislation, to force compensation to owners for loss of property value from any government regulation, was in the Republicans, "Contract with America." A bill swept through the House last spring to force such payments when federal laws protecting wetlands or endangered species reduce property values by 20 percent or more.

An even stiffer bill, with a 33 percent reduction threshold, narrowly passed the Senate Judiciary committee at the end of last year. And out in the states, a flurry of activity has been whipped up by disgruntled small landowners, conservative talk radio hosts, and lobbyist on the propaganda payrolls of big land owning, timber and development interests.

Some of the stories would grab anyone--the tale, for example, of the South Carolina wood lot owner who couldn't log because redheaded cockaded woodpeckers moved in.

All 50 legislatures have considered some form of property rights legislation in the 90's. Eighteen have passed statutes, usually so-called assessment laws to require a "takings impact analysis" before a new government regulation can go into effect.

"We're saying to government: Slow down and see if there's a better way to treat citizens. You can't just run blindly into new regulations," says Dan Wood, a property rights advocate from lumbering territory on the Olympic Peninsula.

But in the past year, states have gone even further than passing "look before you leap" assessment measures. New Mississippi and Louisiana laws mandate property owner compensation for loss caused by state agriculture and timber regulations. Florida is requiring mediation and allowing compensation in the case of "inordinate burden" from regulation. Texas didn't change compensation rules but will let owners out of regulations that would diminish their property value more than 25 percent.

There's a fly in the ointment: When voters are asked directly in referendums, the takings measures are in big trouble. A year ago mandatory impact assessments were defeated 6040 percent in Arizona. This fall, by an identical margin, Washington state voters turned down the strongest takings law ever--a measure to require an elaborate and costly system of assessments and then actual compensation to landowners when virtually any state or local regulations diminish the market value of their property.

What's sinking these measures? Three words tell the story: cost, litigation, bureaucracy. And cost--meaning higher taxes--may be the most potent. A study by the University of Washington's Institute for Public Policy estimated that over several years just the assessment costs borne by Washington local governments would run from $305 million to nearly $1 billion.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Takings Bills: Sane Second Thoughts
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?