?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Okay, I've solved the problem. Yes, preventing people from doing what they want with their own land should be considered a public taking. Yes there should be some sort of compensation to the land owner.

Yes, the Endangered Species Act does promote the public good (whether emotionally or biologically, or both).

So--no, don't compensate landowners for "potential revenue," but don't make them pay anything other than mortgage (something they can make choices about) for land they can't use. Hence, land for which the use has been restricted due to concerns related to the Endangered Species Act should remain titled to the owner, but no property taxes (or similar fees) will be charged on it. Paying people for potential (like legislating about potential things) is absurd, but, it's just WRONG to make people pay taxes on things you won't let them use. So, the landowners aren't out any documentable funds and the ___________________ (fill in the blank for your favorite endangered species) can have a chance to survive in the face of the biological resources greed of the human species.

There. Ha. Problem solved. Everyone can go home now.

Comments

pafirecub
Oct. 24th, 2005 08:27 pm (UTC)
HUGS makes sence - but since it makes sence you know no government would implement it