Property Rights

Sometimes there's a conflict between property owners and the communities where their land is located. Local governments concerned about the quality of life in their communities sometimes come up with master plans that preserve a certain amount of open space around developed areas. Many communities feel they have benefited from such civic actions in that they enjoy fresher air and beautiful scenery nearby whereas some communities are so built up that they are classic examples of Suburban Sprawl.

Some land owners, however, think that these plans and other ordinances that limit the use of their land (including enactment wide riparian setbacks for the rivers and streams that flow through their land) and infringe on their property rights as landowners.

Individualism is strong in the American culture. We don't particularly like to be told what to do with our land or anything else. But we do realize that we have to live together and compromise to ensure that our communities survive. It isn't always easy.

Some property owners combine their resources and attempt to get legislation of their own passed. One example is the "Fair Payment for Public Benefit Act" proposed by a group of landowners in Napa County, California, called the Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance. Their basic premise is that if a local government enacts an ordinance that secures public benefit (such as preserving salmon habitat in a local river) that infringes on their use and ability to profit from their land, the public should compensate the landowner for such benefit.

Not so fast, say their opponents. Legislation that has preserved agricultural land and protected wildlife has actually led to dramatic increases in land values as well as a thriving local wine industry known the world over. None of this would have been possible without the protective measures taken by local government. So, they say landowners are already receiving benefits and do not deserve further compensation.

The Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance points out, however, that they are not trying to undo all the good things that have been done for preserving agricultural land and the environment to date. And they do not want to be compensated for past actions that have limited the use of their land. (Limiting land use is actually a commonly accepted thing.

All communities have zoning laws that determine how portions of land within their boundaries can be used.) The alliance says they simply feel the government has done enough, and no more such protective measures need to be put in place. However, if the government sees things differently, and they pass measures that infringe on their property rights, the landowners want to be paid for their loss of use of the parts of their land affected.

Who's right? That will be up to Napa voters to decide.