Bacon's Rebellion

Bons Secours Extends “Good Help” to Land Use

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

Here’s a twist on real estate development: A medical complex could provide the nucleus for urban-style growth in Chesterfield County. The St. Francis Medical Center complex, which is part of the Bons Secours Richmond Health System, has unveiled a New Urbanist vision of mixed uses, pedestrian boulevards and grid streets in a 130-acre tract just off the Powhite Parkway.

The 10-year plan calls for creating an island of urbanity in the untamed sprawl of disconnected, low-density, single-use development of Chesterfield County. The grid streets, walkable streetscapes, mixed use and ground-level retail are all part of what we’d expect from functional, urban-style development. Here’s what’s unique about the project: Housing, which encompasses a quarter of the site, would be first reserved for medical center employees.

There’s a novel concept: Employers providing housing so employees could live close to where they work!

Not only that, but this employer plans to build an entire community around the employment center at the medical center includes many of the critical elements of daily life.

What the plan doesn’t discuss — at least the article by Wesley P. Hester in the Times-Dispatch doesn’t discuss it — is how to integrate the 130-acre community into the regional transportation system. Insofar as people live, work and play in the development, they will generate less traffic on stressed-out Chesterfield County roads. That’s a good thing. The article did note that a number of changes to the county road plan would have to be implemented, but wasn’t clear what they are.

However the details shake out, the trend toward the urbanization and rationalization of human settlement patterns in dysfunctional Chesterfield County is to be applauded.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

77 responses to “Bons Secours Extends “Good Help” to Land Use”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “There’s a novel concept: Employers providing housing so employees could live close to where they work!”

    You mean like a factory town?

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Insofar as people live, work and play in the development, they will generate less traffic …”

    Insofar being the kew word here.

    Even at that, 130 acres is a pretty big site, and it will shurely spawn realted stuff offiste. You can do an awful lot of walking on 130 acres, and yet I know pwople who will barely walk across the street.

    Maybe it will work, or work partially, I’d just like to see a few of these places mature, and then see the real traffic numbers instead of an endless stream of rosy and unsubstantiated predictions.

    RH

  3. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    As I prepare to head to Mass at 5 PM this evening I am heartened to see the Sisters of Bon Secours (Good Help) providing both medical treatment and urban planning beyond the observed capability of the General Assembly. Of course, two Rastafarians meeting at a bus stop would provide benefits beyond the observed capability of the General Assembly. Maybe we should let with the Pope or the reincarnated ghost of Haile Selassie I run the Commonwealth. Jah knows it would be better than what’s happening now.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Of course, two Rastafarians meeting at a bus stop would provide benefits beyond the observed capability of the General Assembly. “

    Ouch. Hah!

    I think that is the Virginia equivalent of OOF DAH!

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Pastafarians may be more appropriate then Rastafarians.

  6. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    In my mind, this comes much, much closer to the professed benefits of mixed use.

    I’m not sure I saw how many jobs verses how many residential.

    Another thing – affordable residential for the health care support folks?

    As far as traffic is concerned – take note unless one has been living in a cave in Highland County – VDOT is down to the dregs of funding…

    what that means is that places like Chesterfield – with proposals like this – better convince themselves that the road network can handle the development – because VDOT is not only going to not rescue them but, in fact, they won’t be putting down a future road on a wish list either so if the traffic deal goes belly up – the BOS will be held accountable – no more blaming VDOT for not taking care of the problem

    .. and if the BOS manages to stay in office the NEXT project to claim less traffic is going to operating under a queer eye skepticism.

    One approach:

    use traffic counters in/out of the development and if the traffic generation exceeds the predictions – then assess penalties to go into a fund to pay for infrastructure upgrades to handle the higher than predicted traffic.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Who are you going to assess the penalties on?

    The drivers

    The developers?

    Or the chorus of planners and special interest groups that sold this idea as one that would work?

    What if conditions flat out change over time, and it has nothing to do with the developemnt, but just generalized growth?

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “the NEXT project to claim less traffic is going to operating under a queer eye skepticism.”

    And THEN what?

    Thousands of jurisdictions alreay have some kind of growth restrictions – how do you ban growth?

  9. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    You don’t ban growth. You require it to pay for it’s impacts.

    You assess the developer for the proffers and impact fees and they pass that cost onto the individual buyers.

    That’s the way that CDA’s and Service Districts work.

    You require that they be set up and you configure the agreement such that the supplemental tax rate associated with the CDA/Tax District is tied to the traffic generation numbers.

    In the end, it will depend on the type of growth and whether or not it brings net benefits and whether or not new infrastructure is required.

    for wider area improvements, each new development would pay it pro-rata share – much like water/sewer expansions are done.

    The county foots the bill for the expansion – and then assesses each development their fair share of the costs.

  10. Tyler Craddock Avatar
    Tyler Craddock

    You assess the developer for the proffers and impact fees and they pass that cost onto the individual buyers.

    Why make the developer the middleman? If the county want to whack homebuyers, then they should levy the tax directly on them. After all, if the tax is as fair and just as you claim, new homebuyer should be more than happy to stroke an extra check at the closing table (or within x amount of time of moving in).

  11. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Hi Tyler –

    I think what you are talking about is an impact fee – like what is done in Maryland – right?

    In fact HB3202 did offer select counties the ability to levy – per home impact fees in return for taking over responsibility for the roads that served the land where impact fees would be levied?

    But as you also know – counties cannot currently levy proffers unless the developer agrees to in return for a re-zone (as opposed to by-right) – correct?

    Also – how do you feel about water & sewer hook-up fees?

    do you think they are a fair and appropriate way for new homes to pay for infrastructure?

    I think we are about to find out with the requirement that counties form UDAs – minimum 4 units to the acre – which will require water & sewer.

    thoughts?

  12. Tyler Craddock Avatar
    Tyler Craddock

    I was only asking why in all the fees etc that some folks want to attach to new housing do they want to make the developer or builder the middleman.

    If local government wants to collect a fee, collect it directly from the buyer at closing.

  13. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Is that how water/sewer hookup fees are handled, Tyler?

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Jim,
    I know the hospital well since my Mom, who lives around the corner in assisted living, has been in there twice (the place looks like a four-star hotel).
    On transportation, the hospital and surrounding development are about two minutes from the end of the Powhite parkway and a clover leaf at Route 288. It would be very easy to have GRTC provide bus transportation into the city. Problem is, I bet not that many local residents actually work downtown any more. From my part of Chesterfield, many go up 288 to office complexes in Innsbrook and Cox Road in Henrico. Maybe some kind of bus service could be invented for this north-south run.
    But there really isn’t much in the way of public transport in the Richmond burbs. Never has been.
    One other plint: you shouldn’t be so impressed about the “newness.” As others have noted, factories or other places of work have created housing complexes around them — just like company stores and cottages in the coalfields. Moreover, this hospital-centric approach has been coming on for years. Plenty of doctors are selling their practices to hospitals because they don’t want to mess with the increasing paperwork ort because they are squeezed by hospitals to do so. My late father started a medical practies in Eastern North Carolina back in the 1960s, for instance. After he retired and died, his former partners sold out to the local hospital. I suspect they just didn’t want the hassle of running a small business and would rather simply get a salary. Dad would not like this if he were still alive, but he’s the old, independent breed.

    Peter Galuszka

  15. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Larry, You made an interesting suggestion to put a traffic counter at the outlet of the project to see if traffic exceeded projections. I agree, in exchange for rezoning and increased density, developers should take some responsibility for traffic generated by their projects. In an ideal world, (a) every major project like this would have a Transportation Demand Management program designed to keep traffic within acceptable limits, (b) the traffic would be monitored, and (c) the developer and/or CDA should be held financially accountable if traffic exceeds those measures. Developers need to become part of the transportation solution, not part of the problem.

    One other point: I hope this project, like others I have seen, has only a single outlet onto a single thoroughfare. Planners must make sure that it has connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods and commercial projects.

    Peter, You make valid points about the viability of mass transit at that location. Unfortunately, one appropriately planned project cannot provide the critical mass to support mass transit. Chesterfield needs to create an entire corridor, with St. Francis-like projects strung along it. In other words, no matter how good the St. Francis project is, New Urbanism design at the level of individual projects cannot solve regional transportation problems on their own.

    As for the “newness” of the project, you are quite correct in drawing analogies to the old company coal towns. The difference is that those towns were largely autonomous. Economically speaking, they really weren’t connected with one another; they were totally focused on the company owned mined. In the case of St. Francis, the project will exist within a larger urban fabric (low density, disconnected and single-use though it may be), which give people far wider options of where to live, work and shop. I don’t think we have to worry about local residents “owing their soul to the company store.”

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You don’t ban growth. You require it to pay for it’s impacts.”

    If you set the price too high, it is the same thing: you have banned growth through fees rather than an outright ban.

    One reason the “impacts of new growth” are so high is that the old growth never pais its way to begin with. What we have now is NOT a matter of charging growth for its costs, but charging new growth for our preveious underfunding: we are charing new growth for playing catch-up, and we are charging new growth for requirements that we never met ourselves, and frequently for our benefit: runoff controls for example.

    RH

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…the project will exist within a larger urban fabric (low density, disconnected and single-use though it may be), which give people far wider options of where to live, work and shop. “

    Which is exactly why it won’t work as advertised.

    RH

  18. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: traffic counting tied to development fees.

    I would expect to see this happen now that VDOT no longer can build the "future transportation facilities" that show up in so many Comprehensive Plans.

    The other thing that might happen is more proactive master planning of roads similar to what we see with utility infrastructure planning.

    Roads, just like water/sewer do not suddenly "appear" because someone wrote about them in a utilities or comp plan.

    For either of these to be "real", they must appear in the CIP – the capital facilities plan which will detail the cost of the project and where the prospective funding for it will come from.

    The difference is that water & sewer cannot operate at an LOS "F" service level because it would result in a lack of water service and sewer overflows -both of which will result in immediate adverse consequences.

    so utility systems not only "plan" but they also have a CIP – and oh by the way – those utility system have to borrow money which means they get rated by Fitch and similar – which has a direct effect on the cost of the system.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_July_18/ai_n27314891/pg_1

    Just imagine Virginia localities making land-use decisions but the responsibility for water/sewer belonged to a State Agency.

    Guess what would happen?

    Well.. they'd bankrupt that agency ….because there would be no direct consequences bad planning.

    Replace water/sewer with roads and VDOT – and what you get is a bankrupt state agency – driven there by land-use decisions that were done with little regard to the transportation infrastructure impacts of those decisions AND no CIP fund for maintaining LOS.

    The CIP "fund" was – VDOT.

    So.. from now on – I expect the more savy and responsible counties to being paying much closer attention to the traffic generation studies – and perhaps even having VDOT review them or perform them – and then a contract for service – much water/sewer usage is metered.

  19. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: "if you set the price too high, it is the same thing: you have banned growth through fees rather than an outright ban."

    this is foolish.

    do you think that the price for water & sewer is "too high"?

    the price is not "set" without regard to costs but instead is calculated as a pro-rated share of the total cost.

    The 3 biggest infrastructure costs are water/sewer, schools and roads.

    Of those 3 water/sewer is seldom attacked as being unreasonable or "charging too much to restrict growth".

    Why is that?

    re: "One reason the "impacts of new growth" are so high is that the old growth never pais its way to begin with."

    that's bull feathers

    that assumes that someone paid for MORE infrastructure than was immediately needed and so it was available later on for new homes for "free".

    it never was free. Someone had to pay for it.

    Using this reasoning … new folks should get "free" water & sewer because the people before them got it "free".

    How did anyone ever get it "free" to start with?

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    do you think that the price for water & sewer is "too high"?

    I think a $50 or $60 thousand dollar fee to et a building permit – in additiont six or seven thousand ot hook up to an existing water and sewer sywstem is too high, yes.

    And I beleive the reason we charge such fees has nothing to do with paying for infrastructure and everything to do with prohibiting neighbors and their kids.

    To the extent that it does have to do with paying for infrastructure it is an attempt to pass off some of our costs to the new neighbors, or get things that we want and they pay for.

    You can yak all you want: I simply don't believe it because I have seen and heard far too much of the "new neighbor" discrimination at work.

    I've seen it happen with my own eyes, and nothing you can rationalize about costs will convince me iot has ANYTHING to do with costs. You cannot convince me out of my own eyes.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Like I said, who pays the fees?

    The developers or the “planners” who allowed the development?

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    it never was free. Someone had to pay for it.

    WE borrowed the money and paid for it as we went along.

    Look, Larry, if it was only about the money for infrastructure, then we could set a price at which building is allowed, no more questions asked.

    But we don’t do that, because we want public hearings at which any resident can stand up and holler “no!” until he is blue in the face at no cost to himself.

    WE want public heartings where a nice young couple who wants to start a bed and breakfast can be ambushed by two hundred angry residents.

    Its got nothing to do with money, Larry.

  23. Tyler Craddock Avatar
    Tyler Craddock

    Larry,

    I believe that water and sewer fees are collected prior to CO.

    All I wondered was why any proffer tax or impact fee (or yes, even tap fee) could not be paid by the buyer at closing, thus taking the builder out of the role of the middleman.

    My question was rhetorical. The point, though, is that if these fees and taxes are so justified and so fair, then why would any local government have a problem just collecting them from the home buyer ?

  24. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: who collects the fees.

    Tyler, I think if an individual lot owner is applying that – that is the way it works.

    And if not mistaken even for a property owner that is subdividing ‘by-right” parcels, it works that way – because proffers are not part of “by-right” transactions – correct?

    So – where proffers are involved is where a rezone request is in play and my understanding is at that point – the negotiation and transaction is with regard to the property owner wanting the rezone.

    It simply would not be in the interests of efficiency multiple one transaction into dozens or hundreds…

    no?

  25. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: water & sewer that costs more than it should

    If you feel this way about water & sewer, then I can understand why you also feel that other infrastructure costs via proffers are also too high.

    Is your opinion about water & sewer costs based on factual evidence?

    If you cannot show this – then in my view, you're basically into conspiracy theory territory.

    which is off the rails in terms of arguing the "unfairness" of proffers.

    Most county water&sewer books are open to the public by law.

    If not mistaken, private systems in Virginia are also.

    But if you feel that water & sewer is too expensive without any evidence to show that it is, I suspect that you also feel that cars and bread and gasoline are more expensive than they should be also.

    You're entitled to your opinion – but not to your own set of fact.

    I strongly suspect that the vast majority of water & sewer is dead on – in the costs and thought it is expensive – it really reflects the very high expenses associated with building water supplies and sewage treatment plants as well as the pipe infrastructure.

    the reality is that infrastructure costs a heck of a lot of money.

    One mile of rural two-lane road can cost 10-20 million.

    we think that is chump change until we think about if that one mile was a subdivision road and the cost of it had to be shared among the folks whose houses are adjacent to and use that road.

    so.. even if you had 100 houses on that one mile – that's still 100K per home.

    if you think that is "too much", do you think so because you think the cost of the road is wrong or do you think that …just because the costs are not affordable?

    this goes back to your idea that if one charges "too much" for infrastructure that it stops growth.

    What would you do – force the infrastructure to be provided for less than it truly costs?

    Infrastructure costs what it costs.

    There is no massive conspiracy among counties to artificially inflate the cost of infrastructure as a way to stop growth.

    Any fool can look around NoVa, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, etc and see how much land has been developed and determine that these places did not "stop growth" much less accomplish it by overpricing water&sewer connections.

    Virtually every home in NoVa, paid for a water&sewer connection – even if they thought it was pretty expensive.

    The cost of it did not "stop growth".

  26. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: Tylers questions about at what level proffers should be paid.

    I don’t know about all other counties in Va – as you probably do – as it is your profession…

    … but locally – the goal of the BOS has been a policy to limit “by-right” land-development and even within specific zoning – to limit the “by-right”uses so that even on “by-right” land actions, a special permit for the use has to be obtained – and this means the county can then negotiate for proffers – and they do.

    to be clear also – “proffers” are not necessarily just cash for infrastructure.

    proffers can be things like for a business – to shield it’s dumpster from a nearby neighborhood or to use lighting that does not “splatter” onto adjacent properties that don’t want it … etc… etc…

    Outlawing cash-proffers would take away one arrow in the quiver of local governments ability to deal with growth but it would by no means emasculate them – and in the be-careful-what-you-wish-for category… outlawing cash proffers could result in even more onerous,but perfectly legal – responses to land-development that puts existing county taxpayers at risk for footing the infrastructure bills.

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “thus taking the builder out of the role of the middleman. “

    Except, this isn’t how it works.

    The fees narrow the price arena in which a developer can work. So, althoughthe fees are advertised as a way to get at the big bad developers, it has been shown over and over again that about one half the value of the fees is paid in the form or lower land prices, which accrue to existing (but as yet undeveloped) current residents.

    The way these are sold is a fraud, becuase they are advertised as hitting the develoers, but actually they are paid,one half by current residents and one half by new residents.

    Either way, they artificially raise the price of the home without adding anything intrnsically to the value. This is one reason home prices crashed so hard and so far: the sales prices were inflated by fees that added nothing to the value. On top of that, those inflated sales prices affected the prices of existing homes as well.

    Had all this stuff been paid for as we went along, with borrowing and taxes, then the opposite would have occurred.

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “more onerous,but perfectly legal – “

    Legal, but ethically and morally wrong, in other words. More mob rule.

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Virtually every home in NoVa, paid for a water&sewer connection – even if they thought it was pretty expensive.

    The cost of it did not "stop growth"."

    Which isn't to say that it didn't add to sprawl.

    You would think that economics of size and quantity would mean that buying municipal water and sewer would be cheaper than digging your own well and septic, but it isn't.

    That's because of complexity, bureacracy, overhead, and greed. And it is one example why urban spaces are so expensive.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “to limit the “by-right”uses so that even on “by-right” land actions, a special permit for the use has to be obtained “

    So much for rights, eh?

    The by-right provisions were originally put in place specifically to make sure that cureent (but undeveloped) landowners had SOMETHING left when new zoning was put in place.

    But because those property rights wer never COMPLETELY defined, never put in the deeds or property records, and because the government later chose not only to not protect the proerty rights (of one class of citizen) but to actively reduce them, we now have the unethical and immoral actions by the BOS you describe.

    It is just as TMT says: you cannot trust your local government.

    RH

  31. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “it has been shown over and over again that about one half the value of the fees is paid in the form or lower land prices, which accrue to existing (but as yet undeveloped) current residents.”

    valid, objective evidence?

    “The way these are sold is a fraud, becuase they are advertised as hitting the develoers, but actually they are paid,one half by current residents and one half by new residents.”

    then why have you been saying that existing residents do not pay for infrastructure for new residents?

    “Either way, they artificially raise the price of the home without adding anything intrnsically to the value. This is one reason home prices crashed so hard and so far: the sales prices were inflated by fees that added nothing to the value. On top of that, those inflated sales prices affected the prices of existing homes as well.”

    you mean a school or a library or a fire house have ‘no value’?

    Had all this stuff been paid for as we went along, with borrowing and taxes, then the opposite would have occurred.

  32. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “You would think that economics of size and quantity would mean that buying municipal water and sewer would be cheaper than digging your own well and septic, but it isn’t.

    That’s because of complexity, bureacracy, overhead, and greed. And it is one example why urban spaces are so expensive.”

    You realize of course that water/sewer can be (and is) provided outside of urbanized areas through both private and public service districts.

    Do you think ALL of them.. every last one of them suffers from “complexity, bureaucracy, overhead and greed”?

    If not.. can you show one that has “reasonable” hook-up fees to compare with all the ones that you say are “unreasonable”?

  33. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “The by-right provisions were originally put in place specifically to make sure that cureent (but undeveloped) landowners had SOMETHING left when new zoning was put in place.

    But because those property rights wer never COMPLETELY defined, “

    who decides the definition of “by-right”?

    the landowner or government?

  34. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “It is just as TMT says: you cannot trust your local government.”

    yeah.. except TMT does not trust them to not let the developers run amok and get away without paying their true costs…..like transportation infrastructure….parks, libraries, etc

    .. and you think the opposite… that folks like TMT should pay for them…

    right?

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “.. and you think the opposite… that folks like TMT should pay for them…”

    Nope, I do not think the opposite. What I think is that your arguments offer a partial truth. I think the correct answer is somewhere between the existing residents pay for everything and the new residents pay for everything.

    What I do think is that existing residents have paid no where near enough for a very long time, and the result is the situation we find ourselves in: two more major water main breaks reported this morning.

    To now claim that new residents should pay a lot more, and pay for new services never previously required, and help make up for our previous deficits is selfish, disingenuous, and a distortion of who is responsible for what.

    Not only that, but the arguments used to sell it “make the developers pay” are fundamentally a lie: developers don’t pay the proffers, and they aren’t the people to profit from them either.

    RH

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Do you think ALL of them.. every last one of them suffers from “complexity, bureaucracy, overhead and greed”?”

    Yes, of course. It is perfectly natural they would.

    Compared to drilling your own well and septic the necessarily have more complexity, bureacracy, overhead, risk, and greed.

    Show me a place where you can get water and sere hookup for around $3000, and then I’d say you have a system that is pretty efficient.

    But, as long as it costs MORE than a private system, and as long as they ban you from having a private system to support their monopoly, thenthere is something seriously wrong.

    Unless they offer a superior service, better cleaning, etc. But those costs should be in the service fees, not the access fees. Unfortunately, the fact is that most municipal services leak like a sieve. If you had a rivate service that was that bad it would be condemned.

    And that’s just the water and sewer part, which are reasonably well run, usually. The rest of the proffers go to lord knows what, managed lord knows how.

    RH

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    who decides the definition of “by-right”?

    the landowner or government?

    The government obviously decides it, and in this case the government is obviously a liar and not doing its job.

    When the fisrt by-rights were defined they were actually a reduction in rights previously assumed. That reduction in rights was in order to benefit the ret of society, and the rest of society should have paid for their new rights and benefits. But theyt didn’t: they stole them.
    So there was an initial problem in that the rights were never adequately defined nor defended.

    Having once defined the (newly reduced) by-rights the government should have adequately defined them and subsequently protected them. but they didn;t do that either. Instead they required new restrictions be met in order to use what were previously defined (by the government) as rights.

    Again, That reduction in rights or increase in restrictions was in order to benefit the rest of society, and the rest of society should have paid for their new rights and benefits.

    But they are not doing it. They are getting something for nothing, which amounts to stealing – government sanctioned.

    This is wrong, and I don’t see how you can not see it. In this case it is wrong serially and incrementally, which makes it even worse. In some locations by-rights have been reduced six or seven times and the proponents of doing so actually brag about it.

    If there is such a thing as a soul, then I feel sorry for theirs.

    Sure, the government candecide what rights are, but having once decided, then government has an obligation to protect them, just like any other property, and they have an obligation to pay for them when taken for public benefit, just like any other property.

    Otherwise, no one is safe from anything.

    RH

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Either way, they artificially raise the price of the home without adding anything intrnsically to the value.”

    To the extent that proffers do actually result in improved neighborhoods, then some of that expense will reflect back on the homes in that neighborhood. So what you are saying is that proffers DO increase the value of existing homes and existing homeowners are therfore getting a free and unfair ride.

    But, only part of the value is reflective of the neighborhood, and all of the costs land on the new homes (and by extension the existing ones).

    There is nothing intrinsically added to the value of the home like a deck or garage that the owner can point to, own, and transfer.

    When much of that extrinsic value evaporated it contributed to the collapse in home prices. It suddenly became an “externality” that no one kne how to value.

    RH

  39. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: the government deciding “by-right”.

    done Democratically.

    If a majority of property owners (which includes anyone who owns property – not just the developers of raw land) don’t want Commercial zoning to allow a “by-right” muffler repair shop right next to a residential neighborhood – guess what?

    The property owners of the residential have the “right” to NOT have their properties devalued by a noxious business and their right is superior to the “right” of a landowner to develop their property in such a way that it adversely affects other properties.

    Using your logic – the adjacent property owners would have to pay the noise-making property owner to keep him from making noise….

    it’s totally backwards RH.

    your “right” ends exactly at the point where it interferes/adversely affect others property rights.

    You don’t have the “right” to develop your property without regard to impacts to others.

    That’s why governments have the right to determine what “by-right” is and is not.

    Who would decide this if not for government – government that represents ALL landowners?

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “done Democratically.”

    But not fairly or ethically. It is mob rule at the local level where the governments obligation to protect minorities is given short shrift.

    There is no doubt that government has the ability to determine what is by right and what is not. But, having done that, government then has an obligation to protect those rights, or to pay for them once removed.

    Nobody is saying government cannot change the rules, but they have an obligation to compensate thoase that “bought into the game” under the previous rules. Such people have a vested interest, which the government is then stealing.

    If government isn;t willing to be honest enough to protect the rights it has given, then government should at least be honest enough to stop calling them rights.

    RH

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You don’t have the “right” to develop your property without regard to impacts to others.”

    Unless the government has previously given you that right. Particularly when it has “given” that right as a quid pro quo for removing other previously existing rights.

    What part of WRONG is it that you cannot seem to understand?

    The only thing tht is necessary to prevent this kind of misunderstanding (and thievery) is to write the rules into the deeds of record at the time of the change. Then, if the deed changes hands before the “right” is exercised, it expires and the new rules take effect.

    It is simply a matter of defining what amounts to valuable property, and who owns it, then having government do its primary job, whichis to protect people and property.

    ALL the people and ALL the property, not just those who have already exercised their rights to develop. The right to develop (once granted and promised by the government) is valuable property that the government has no business excising without compensation.

    RH

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Who would decide this if not for government – government that represents ALL landowners?”

    Exactly.

    And that is why the government has an obligation to protect the minority landowners, even if that is unpopular with the rest. Otherwise the “rest” are effectively claiming new proeprty rights in favor of their property that they have not paid for.

    RH

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If a majority of property owners (which includes anyone who owns property – not just the developers of raw land) don’t want Commercial zoning to allow a “by-right” muffler repair shop right next to a residential neighborhood – guess what?”

    Depends on whether the neighboring property was previously zoned commercial or not. If it was zoned commercial when the residential owners bought their property then they bought it knowing what the neighboring zoning was.

    If the owner of the commercial land bought it with the understanding that muffler shops were on the list of commercial activiites, then he has a vested interest and the residential neighbors DO NOT have, (nor should they have paid for) any expectation of quiet.

    My home in Alexandria is a couple of blocks away from a car dealership which makes ample use of its public address system. I don’t like it, but the car dealer was there first.

    I am free to round up my neighbors and make an offer to the dealership to stop the practice if ti bothers me enough.

    I allow (some) hunting on my proeprty. When a new neighbor moved in she freaked out over this and actually offered to pay me to stop it.

    So, yes absolutely, under certain circumstances the adjacent property owners would have to pay the noise-making property owner to keep him from making noise….

    ——————————-

    BUT – if he is asking for NEW commercial zoning where none existed before, then the sho is on the other foot, but that wasn’t the original argument – we were talking about “by-rights” which would include those purchased along with property zoned commercial.

    The problem we have is that these are not designated explicitly enough, nor are they sufficiently protected, and this is what gives rise to the mob rule “democracy” that you describe.

    What happens is that you buy a property and you get the right to apply for a “special exception” the special exception being anything new. This makes the property much less valuable hthan it would be if the rights were described explicitly.

    And by extension it makes the neighboring properties more valuable – EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER PAID ADDITIONAL FOR THE EXTRA PROPERTY RIGHTS THEY NOW DEMAND BY ACCLAMATION.

    ——————————–

    This is merely a question of carefully defining who owns what and at what point in time. If we don;t do that then none of us really owns anything.

    The property rights claimed by environmentalists will be just as much at risk as the property rights of the worst polluter, so it is impoortant to understand what this is really alll about.

    It is just as the Burt’s Bees magnate said after she bought 20,000 acres in Maine and closed it to all commercial activities: “It is my property and I can do what I like with it.”

    Without strong property rights that would not be true. And, even she had to buy out fishing and hunting leases on the property that were previously approved.

    By your logic she could have just kicked those people out without compensation.

    And these kinds of property rights will be very important as we move more into a “cap and trade” kind of environment. We already have “air rights; next it will be carbon credits, then sulfur, then ozone and particulates in urban areas, then noise, and so on.

    It is not me that has this backwards, Larry, it is you. It isn’t even my logic: it is mostly written into the law, but it is not applied to zoning law, nor is there adequate recourse under zoning law.

    This is precisely because people who think the way you do saw it as an opportunity for nearly unbridled power over other peoples property.

    So far, they have been right, but the recent debacle in Oregon shows that the argument is far from over, and similar rules have already been written into law in other countries that are more progressive and more egalitarian about property rights.

    In Oregon, the land use regulations that were passed originally were passed with an explicit promise of compensation. That ccompensation never developed, and a referndum was passed to essentially enforce the original promises made when the first round of land restrictions were passed. This basically required the government to make good on its riginal promises, and set rules for a “start date”.

    That referndum was subsequently overturned with tremendous financial help from outside the state. Regardless of how the campaign was paid for the result was more “mob rule” a relative handfll of proerty owners got robbed by a majority of people who did not have to pay the costs involved, but who percieved themselves as protecting something that they already “owned”. so once again it was a matter of property rights which were ill-defined and ill protected, to begin with, and therefore subject to abrogation.

    The most interesting thing about the Oregon situation was that when the first referendum was passed to enforce the previous legislative promise of compensation, then the land conservation forces claimed that this amounted to an aborgation of THEIR property rights (when they had purchased proeprty adjacent to land they [now] though was protected.

    This was precisely the same argument, often voiced in the same phrases that the land conservation people had previously rejected when the bill was first passed legislatively.

    Then, when THEY had the upper hand on the second referendum, they AGAIN rejected the very arguments (same arguments you use) that they used to complain about the first referendum!

    In other words, my argument is correct, it only matters which side of the fence you stand on, and WHEN the rules are imposed.

    But, in the case where “by-rights” are granted by government, and then later reduced AGAIN, what possible argument makes any sense other than compensation for public use, as generally described by the constitution?

    There is no one to prevent us from stealing democratically except ourselves. I don’t know about you, but I cannot ethically bring myself to vote in favor of such a thing.

    RH

  44. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “”done Democratically.”

    But not fairly or ethically. It is mob rule ..”

    It is the same exact process that determined the Governor of Virginia and the President of the United States – though .

    Agree?

  45. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “Nobody is saying government cannot change the rules, but they have an obligation to compensate thoase that “bought into the game” under the previous rules.”

    Not true.

    Ask all the companies that used to make products that were subsequently outlawed.

    Ask the folks who used to build public facilities without ADA facilities.

    Ask the folks who used to make process food without disclosing the ingredients.

    The rule of law specifically provides for this.

  46. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “If government isn;t willing to be honest enough to protect the rights it has given, then government should at least be honest enough to stop calling them rights.”

    I think there is some serious confusion here between what is a “right” and what is not and what is a granted and revokeable privilege.

  47. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “”You don’t have the “right” to develop your property without regard to impacts to others.”

    Unless the government has previously given you that right. Particularly when it has “given” that right as a quid pro quo for removing other previously existing rights.”

    Not true.

    The “right” is not irrevocably permanent.

    It is contingent and revokeable based on what the government decides is equitable to all parties.

  48. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “The only thing tht is necessary to prevent this kind of misunderstanding (and thievery) is to write the rules into the deeds of record at the time of the change.”

    has it occurred to you RH – that there is a reason why they are not written into deeds?

    It’s not an oversight.

    It’s because some of the things that you perceive as a permanent right – are not a indelible and permanent right.

    If Washington or Richmond or Facquier go through a legal process to outlaw a previously permitted activity, they can do it and the Constitution says that they can.

  49. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “The right to develop (once granted and promised by the government) is valuable property that the government has no business excising without compensation.”

    There is an explicit process for this. It’s called “vesting” and the process is defined with respect at what point the government cannot reverse course.

    But by your logic – if the government upzones property and by doing so makes it more valuable – then you would owe them compensation.

    So, instead, the Government limits on purpose what the additional by-right uses are when land is up-zoned.

    It then becomes a negotiation as to what rights you can obtain in return for granting rights to the government.

    But you are not entitled to an upzone nor are you entitled to any/all by-right uses associated with an upzone.

  50. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “And that is why the government has an obligation to protect the minority landowners, even if that is unpopular with the rest. Otherwise the “rest” are effectively claiming new proeprty rights in favor of their property that they have not paid for.”

    how do you determine who is a minority landowner?

    The Government has an obligation to represent ALL landowners and the Government is held accountable by ALL landowners as to whether or not ALL landowners concur with that equal representation.

    You have property rights – to USE property than you own – within the constraints of the law – which can and is changed when it is determined to be in the interests of society.

    You have certain rights to DEVELOP property that are DIFFERENT and much more limited AND.. ALSO subject to change by the same process and criteria.

  51. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “Depends on whether the neighboring property was previously zoned commercial or not. If it was zoned commercial when the residential owners bought their property then they bought it knowing what the neighboring zoning was.”

    Not true.

    If adjacent properties are adversely affected – the zoning rules can change.

    this is another reason why many localities remove most by-right uses from commercial and require a special-use permit for each specific activity.

    That special-use permit is explicit in what it allows and does not allow and it is also – more than anything else – a “permit” – subject to change.

  52. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “I am free to round up my neighbors and make an offer to the dealership to stop the practice if ti bothers me enough.”

    you are free to solicit government to institute a noise ordinance which will apply.

  53. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “It is just as the Burt’s Bees magnate said after she bought 20,000 acres in Maine and closed it to all commercial activities: “It is my property and I can do what I like with it.”

    True – but this is the reverse of what you are advocating.

    He’s saying that he chooses not to engage in a permitted use – as opposed to him saying that he can do anything with his property no matter what the laws say.

  54. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “Without strong property rights that would not be true. And, even she had to buy out fishing and hunting leases on the property that were previously approved.

    By your logic she could have just kicked those people out without compensation.”

    As long as their activities do not adversely affect other landowners.

    I can guarantee you that if bullets fly off of that property and end up in other people’s houses – that the rules will (and have often) change.

    Doesn’t this tell you that rules can change without compensation?

  55. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “It is not me that has this backwards, Larry, it is you. It isn’t even my logic: it is mostly written into the law, but it is not applied to zoning law, nor is there adequate recourse under zoning law.”

    I’m supporting the way the law currently operates.

    Which means I agree with a whole bunch of folks… who write and enforce the laws.

    so.. according to you.. a whole bunch of folks are “backwards” on the law –

    right?

    I don’t mind being in the minority on some of my reasoning but on this issue – don’t you agree that I’m aligned with the majority – you know the “mob rule” ….

  56. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: "But, in the case where "by-rights" are granted by government, and then later reduced AGAIN, what possible argument makes any sense other than compensation for public use, as generally described by the constitution?"

    I think the long and short of it is that your "rights" are contingent on if your rights adversely affect others and their "rights".

    What I support is your ability to do what you wish with your property as long as your activities do not adversely affect others.

    In common words – "your rights end where mine begin".

    Your "use" of your property is not a permanent irrevocable right.

    The State (elected government) retains the ultimate right to change your rights at any time it believes that your rights are adversely affecting other's rights.

    Many companies that used to make a profit selling something that was later determined to be harmful – were subsequently outlawed from manufacturing those products – not only without compensation but, in fact, the ability of those harmed by those products to seek recourse.

    Ask Johns Mansfield or Allied Chemical or GE or PG&L or Union Carbide…. or dozens/hundreds of other "landowners" who thought they had irrevocable "rights".

    The process is super simple.

    A law is passed that says – "It is illegal to do this" and that's the end of it.

    This process is not enforced by a dictator but instead a duly-elected government that is doing exactly what voters expect them to do.

  57. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I think the long and short of it is that your “rights” are contingent on if your rights adversely affect others and their “rights”.”

    OK so based on what is now a new interpretation of the rights that others have, the government comes in and removes some of your rights, and this is ALWAYS done withthe argument that it is for the public good.

    And as part and parcel of that “transaction” the government promises you certain reamining rights.

    Then later the government comes back and takes those, or some of them.

    The government has lied to you, and reneged on its promise, pure and simple.

    And in some cases this has happened over and over and over again.

    We are not talking about selling something that is later determined to be harmful, we are talking aobut a situation where the government made explicit promises about permissable uses and then reneged on those promises.

    However, even in cases where products are found to be harmful, manufacturors are frequently allowed years to change their processes and products, simply because they (and the communities they support) have a vested interest in fixing the problem rather than simply preventing it.

    But this is an atempt to change the subject.

    Even if I agree that “my rights end where yours begin”, that does NOT give you the right to simply claim new rights in such a way that you can abrogate mine additionally or incrementally. You don’t own the right to anything new unless it is paid for.

    If you are making a claim on public property then my claim is just as valid as yours. And lets not confuse fungibility with ownership. You and I may both own shares in the same company, and yet not know which shares. I decide to sell my shares, which will reduce the value of yours, but you have NO RIGHT to tell me I cannot sell.

    If you now want to claim that what was once public property like air is now private, that you somehow own it and I have no right to pollute “your” property, then you are ignoring the fact that I have just as much right to claim use of my air as you have of yours.

    Therefore, before you can make any such claim, we need to agree on the rules of ownership. It is as I have said consistently a matter of first properly defining property rights, and then protecting them so that they CAN be owned, and sold without interference.

    The case you are claiming is dangerous to private property, and it is dangerous to public property like the environment, and the best way to make sure that things are taken care of is to be clear about who owns what, and to properly defend such ownership.

    RH

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Your “use” of your property is not a permanent irrevocable right.”

    I have never said that it was. Only that once such a promise of intended allowable use is made by the government, and once I have invested in that promise, then the government has a responsibility to make good on it.

    Government can take my property, but they are obligated to pay for it when they do, especially when it is property previously expressly granted by the governement.

    Your ability to claim new property by msimply making new claims to rights that abrogate my property is not an irrevocable right, either.

    What you are saying is that we should tolerate a government that lies to us and steals from us, and it is OK if mob rule decides to steal from the minority.

    Sorry, I don;t buy it. It is wrong, and someone needs to stand up and say so. If I’m not mistaken, Hitler and Mugabe and a lot of other really bad governments were originally “elected”.

    What history shows us is that it is NOT the case that a law is passed and that is that. And that isn’t even the case as I was taught in civics class. I have the right to go and try to overturn that law, either through force of votes, or force of consciencs.

    RH

  59. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “OK so based on what is now a new interpretation of the rights that others have, the government comes in and removes some of your rights, and this is ALWAYS done withthe argument that it is for the public good.

    And as part and parcel of that “transaction” the government promises you certain reamining rights.”

    it’s not a new interpretation.

    your “rights” are not irrevocable.

    they are subject to change is it is determined that your “rights” adversely affect others.

    They were never locked in stone.

    If they were – when we tell someone to stop producing PCBs, we’d owe them compensation – and we do not – because we determined that we initially made a mistake thinking that they could be produced without harming others.

    Once we actually figured out that the production of them DID adversely affect others – then we reached the point of realizing that those “rights” were harmful to others.

  60. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “The government has lied to you, and reneged on its promise, pure and simple.”

    think about what you are saying.

    who is the “government”?

    the “government” is you and your neighbors in your county, the state and the nation and you and they go to the polls every election day and determine exactly “who” the government is.

    And the Government (all people) reserve the “right” to restrict practices previously thought benign.

    The Government CAN and DOES change it’s mind based on MORE information.

    How else would you be able to make changes once you discovered that a product or practice – previously thought just fine – to be not fine?

  61. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: ” We are not talking about selling something that is later determined to be harmful, we are talking aobut a situation where the government made explicit promises about permissable uses and then reneged on those promises.”

    what does “permissable use” mean and can the government (all citizens) decide that something that used to be “ok” is no longer “ok”?

  62. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “Even if I agree that “my rights end where yours begin”, that does NOT give you the right to simply claim new rights in such a way that you can abrogate mine additionally or incrementally. You don’t own the right to anything new unless it is paid for.”

    there is no “new right” involved at all – if it is determined that a “right” that you had – was found to adversely affect others when you exercised it – perhaps in ways that were previously not considered when the right was first accorded.

    That’s why Government (citizens) have the right to change what “rights” are.

  63. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “If you now want to claim that what was once public property like air is now private, that you somehow own it and I have no right to pollute “your” property, then you are ignoring the fact that I have just as much right to claim use of my air as you have of yours.”

    When you put something in the air that harms people and it leaves your property and goes over top others property then they can stop you from doing that because you have no right to pollute their property to start with.

  64. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “The case you are claiming is dangerous to private property, and it is dangerous to public property like the environment, and the best way to make sure that things are taken care of is to be clear about who owns what, and to properly defend such ownership.”

    the laws ARE CLEAR.

    the PUBLIC “owns” the air and water and the PUBLIC determines what can be legally discharged into air and water.

    Many years ago – you might have thought you had the right to put stuff in air and water because there were no laws saying that you could not.

    That did not mean that you had the right much less that it was an irrevocable right.

    It was only a “permitted” activity to start with.

    You were permitted to do it until and unless it was determined to harm others then your permission to do it – was revoked.

    Despite what you say about being given time to reduce or delay not polluting – the basis for the law is clear.

    You never had a right to pollute to start with.

    the fact that the government gives you “time” to figure out how to do it different is not a “right”.

    If the substance being released is considered to be unacceptable for any length of time – your plant will be shut down the next day.

    and that happens.

  65. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re:”Your “use” of your property is not a permanent irrevocable right.”

    I have never said that it was. Only that once such a promise of intended allowable use is made by the government, and once I have invested in that promise, then the government has a responsibility to make good on it.

    there was only a promise to allow it as long as it was determined not adversely affect others.

    think about the word “allowable”.

    it does not mean forever.

    it means “allowed unless and until we determine it to be NOT in the best interests of others – as well as you”.

  66. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “What you are saying is that we should tolerate a government that lies to us and steals from us, and it is OK if mob rule decides to steal from the minority.”

    Government can and does have the “right” to change allowable uses.

    This is not “lying” and it only appears to be “lying” to those who thought that an allowable use was, in fact, an irrevocable right.

    “Mob Rule” is how we govern in this country and it is preferred to rule by Dictator.

    “Mob Rule” is how your BOS is determined – as well as your GA reps, your Congressional Reps, the Governor and the President of the United States.

    How would you do it differently?

  67. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: ” I have the right to go and try to overturn that law, either through force of votes, or force of consciencs.”

    You do have that right – in a “Democracy” … you would not – in places that substitute one persons rule for “mob rule”.

    Some laws are unfair and that’s why we have legislative bodies and that’s why we elect those who make decisions in those bodies.

    It’s a badly flawed system – agreed.

    It’s way the heck better than most alternatives.

  68. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We are notalking about replacing democracy with one persons rule.

    We are talking about democracy having the ethics and morals to protect the minority: to not assert itself as mob rule.

    It goes to the old Kaldor-Hicks argument: If what the majority wants is really good for the majority, then they should have no problem providing adequate compensation to the minority who suffer disbenefits.

    If they are not willing to do that, then they are little more than legal thieves.

    RH

  69. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Government can and does have the “right” to change allowable uses.”

    No, in fact it does not. When government takes private property for public use it is required to make compensation.

    All I’m suggesting is that we have given this requirement short shrift. When “property” is properly defined (more or less anything of value that can be sold) and when “public use” is properly defined (more or less the only reason you would have for changing an allowable use), then may position is clear.

    Yes, the government has the right to change the use, but it also has an obligation to pay for the loss in value that occurs because of it.

    The only thing this does is enforce Kaldor-Hicks efficiency: the government willhave little incentive to change the use if it does not provide a true social benefit or cost savings.

    As it stands now, the government can act with impunity, and ofr little or no reason other than the fact that some majority demands it: a demand the majority knowd that it will not have to pay for.

    Therfore it is nothing more than legalized stealing.

    Legal, but unethical and immoral, and as far as I’m concerned, unconstitutional.

    RH

  70. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Some laws are unfair “

    And that is why it is official policy that laws pass the test of net social benefit, according to the genral accounting office, which is paid for and supported by the legislature.

    The logical solution is to apply Kaldor Hicks in such a way that the net social benefit is retained and the unfairness is removed.

    The ONLY way you can acquiesce to the idea that “some laws are unfair” is if you endorse the concept of legalized stealing.

    RH

  71. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    the “government” is not some foreign nefarious entity..

    in the broadest sense, the government is the people…

    and people.. everyone who owns property – participate in deciding what those “rights” are and are not.

    and no – if people decide that a particular “right” unfairly tips the scales in favor on some individuals over others then they can and do change the game – without compensation.

    so.. 50 years ago.. you might have been able to put a 500 foot deep quarry on your property no matter how your neighbors felt about it.

    50 years later -you cannot – because enough other incidents happened that people – government decided that such an unfettered right had such adverse consequences on other folks rights that it would be further restricted.

    So the potentials of your “rights” are not permanent and are changeable – without compensation.

    No one owes you a penny when the rules change.

    Government is allowed to change the rules.

    and they do it all the time.

    Ask folks who used to have the “right” to smoke in a restaurant or burn trash in an open barrel in their back yard.. or a gazillion other examples.

    No one is going to pay you to not burn trash in your back yard.

    They are going to flat out – outlaw it – and in doing so – extinguish yet another supposed “right”.

    So.. the basic concept of you having a permanent, unchangeable “bundle of sticks” is simple not the reality.

    and blaming the government as being immoral and unethical for changing the bundle of sticks – if a majority of other property owners agree to that limitation is wrong IMHO.

    If a majority of property owners AGREE that as a group – they are better off by restricting some rights – then I don’t consider that unethical nor “mob rule”.

    I consider it the way our current system was designed to work.

    If a majority of people decide that we do not want PCBs in our environment – then it’s not at all unethical to say to everyone: ” You no longer have the right to put PCBs into the environment”.

    so.. yes.. you have lost the “right” to discharge PCBs from your property and no you will not be compensated for it.

    I think .. that “thinking” you have a bundle of sticks that can never be changed is – in opposition to the fundamental way that a Democratic society works.

    Why would you expect others to defend your “rights” if they felt that your “rights”, in fact, were harming them?

    Who would you expect to help you defend your “rights” besides yourself?

    You say you would seek others who think the same way as you do and then – through Government – seek to preserve and protect your rights.

    Fair enough.

    But others also can do the same thing in opposition.

    If they win it is “mob rule”.

    But if you win – with a majority – it’s not?

    How else could you win?

  72. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You still don’t get it or refuse to get it. Of course there is no right (NOW) to distribute PCB’s. This is a red herring as far as this argument is concerned. Owners may not use their property in ways that will injure their neighbors. And neither may the neighbors claim injury where none or very little actually exists.

    “No one owes you a penny when the rules change.

    Government is allowed to change the rules.”

    Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

    Yes government is allowed to change the rules, but if they take or damage ou rproperty as a result they are required by the constitution to pay up. Government does in fact have a requirement to pay up when the rules change.

    Unfortunately, the courts have been locked into what the Supreme Court itself has called 70-odd years of ad hoc regulatory takings jurisprudence. As a result, they give relief in only a limited range of cases. That means that property owners, both large and small, bear the full costs of the public goods the regulations bring about, when in all fairness those costs should be borne by the public that orders those goods in the first place. Under current rules and cnditions it is neraly impossible to even get standing to get to court. The courts, acting almost as if they were extensions of the political branches, refuse to order the compensation the Constitution requires.

    Properly legislation aimed at better protecting the rights of property owners will in no way impair governmental efforts to prevent environmental harms. The principal function of government, after all, is to secure the rights of individuals and the public against such harm. Nor will such legislation prevent government from providing the public with various environmental goods, provided the public is willing to pay for those goods. It will prohibit government from taking those goods, however.

    The only justification fot the point of view you (and many conservationists) hold is
    1) unjustified fear the valuable, and useful environmental regulations will be overturned, and
    2) to try to get something for nothing or to get it by force in contravention to the requirements of the US constitution.

    In fact, stong protection of property rights (of all kinds, not just real estate rights) is absolutely necessary for strong protection of environmental rights.

    RH

  73. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “Owners may not use their property in ways that will injure their neighbors. “

    two questions:

    1. – who makes the determination?

    2. – can this be done at any time past, present or future?

  74. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “The principal function of government, after all, is to secure the rights of individuals and the public against such harm. Nor will such legislation prevent government from providing the public with various environmental goods, provided the public is willing to pay for those goods. It will prohibit government from taking those goods, however.”

    just FYI – an “environmental good” is not paying others to not generate PCBs.

    In other words – the “environmental good” is the ABSENCE of PCBs and other harmful substances no matter the value of these things to individuals past, present or future.

    We don’t “owe” compensation to polluters to keep them from polluting.

  75. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “We don’t “owe” compensation to polluters to keep them from polluting.”

    Maye not, eventually, but it is common practice to allow polluters to continue to pollute through some transition period. We do this preciselsy because we recognize that we have permitted them to have and create a vested interest under the old regulations.

    Beyond that you are wrong. NOTHING can be produced without dreating some pollution. Therefore anytime we buy something we ARE in fact compensating polluters.

    We can require them to set higher higher standards of cleanliness, but we expect to pay higher prices for their porcducts as a result. WE absolutely compensate polluters for polluting.

    And in fact there are cases when the most eonomical thing to do meght well be to compensate polluters.

    If you seriously believe that an environmental good is SOLELY the ABSENCE of harmful substances, then you do not understand ANYTHING about environmental chemistry, environmental physics, or environmental economics.

    If it was truly an abslolute “environmental good” not to have PCB’s inthe environment, then we would go ut and find them and remove them. That isn’t happening and isn’t going to happen, because the cost is (now) so much higher than the benefit.

    RH

  76. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “two questions:

    1. – who makes the determination?

    2. – can this be done at any time past, present or future?”

    That really is the crux of the issue, isn’t it?

    And equally so for the statement that neighbors may not restrict the use of land whic is not their own based on frivolous claims of “net social betterment”.

    As for past present and future, No. Having once made a determination of policy, government is responsible for compensationto anyone who made investments based on that policy.

    We have made egregious damage to native Amaricnas based on policies we put in place. Rightgfully, we should have compensated them fairly when we made those initial new claims for “property rights”.

    But now we have made huge investments based on those newly claimed property rights. If we had a sudden turn of conscience and decided to “make good” to the native Americans, we would also have to “make good” on all the subsequent investments that we undid.

    RH

  77. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Who makes the determination?

    It should be made only on provable damages, so the determination should be made by an independent third party or a randomly drawn jury, based on the best science and market data available.

    For example, the SCC is responsible for making eminent domain determinations resulting from power line permits it issues.

    Clearly this is NOT an independent third party.

    AS it stands now the process of stting standards is entirley too political.

    RH

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT