The Limits of Buying Land in Sprawl Control - Opinion Piece by John
Echeverria - Jan. 2000
March 9, 2000 Note: The Conservation Department thought this
op-ed piece by John Echeverria that appeared in the Washington Post
earlier this year, although addressed to sprawl problems in Virginia, could have
just as well been addressed to the Whitman Administration, which is very
reluctant to use regulatory tools to save our remaining intact habitats and
farmland. NJAS has been troubled by the over-reliance on acquisition in recent
years, even as we have fought hard for the 1,000,000 acre plan and funding. It
is no substitute for a State Plan with Teeth.
DOUBLE–DIP
CONSERVATION
A COSTLY, CUMBERSOME APPROACH TO SPRAWL
THE WASHINGTON POST
OUTLOOK SECTION, Page B8, Sunday,
January 2, 2000
BY JOHN ECHEVERRIA
The proposal by some Virginia legislators to address the problem of sprawl
development by relying on publicly funded land purchases (Metro Section, Dec.
12) – apparently in lieu of zoning, impact fees and other regulatory tools –
offers a solution that is unfair, unnecessary and ultimately ineffectual.
That public purchases of private lands have their place, in order to create
parks and for certain other pubic purposes, is undeniable. The mistake is in
thinking that land purchases should be the only or even the main way to conserve
land and manage land uses. The proposal would require the massive use of tax
dollars to pay for land value created, in large measure, by public investments
and the investments of other private firms and individuals. Private land value
reflects the benefits conferred by, for example, investments in roads and
schools and in job-creating businesses, which create a demand for new uses that
private, undeveloped land can support.
It is unfair to ask the pubic to pay for land value twice – once by helping
to create it in the first place and second by buying the land from the owner at
its market value. The unfairness is compounded because land values also reflect
the effects of neighbors’ compliance with reasonable land-use restrictions,
which raises the value of developable land by making the community a more attractive
place.
The proposal to rely on acquisition in lieu of regulation also is
unnecessary, because neither the original intentions of the drafters of the Bill
of Rights, including Virginia’s own James Madison nor the ruling of the
Supreme Court bar the use of regulatory measures to limit and channel
development. While the Supreme Court is supportive of property rights, it
repeatedly has rejected the the idea that an owner is entitled to the potential
profits from developing his or her land. That is why the courts across the
country routinely have upheld forest-use or agricultural-use zoning, techniques
that could go a long way toward protecting Virginia’s beautiful working
landscapes without gouging the taxpayers.
Finally, at least to the extent that the acquisition strategy relies
exclusively on purchases from willing sellers, it would be ineffectual in
controlling unsightly and destructive development because it fails to address the
"holdout’ problem. For example, a policy to stop development along a
scenic ridge will founder if one uncooperative owner decides to build there
anyway. Likewise, an investment of millions of dollars in preserving an
agricultural valley would be largely wasted if one owner insisted on subdividing
a key parcel for development (and then marketing the units at high prices based
on their proximity to protected conservation lands).
Land acquisition has a place in land conservation. But it is a limited place.
John D. Echeverria directs the Environmental Policy Project at Georgetown
University Law Center.
Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company.
|
