by Tom DeWeese
American Policy Center
July
12, 2005
Due to recent confusion and half-truths concerning the coming effort to
reauthorize Endangered Species Act, the American Policy Center feels it is time
to clear the air a bit.
Some of our frequent allies on property rights are playing word games with
grassroots property rights advocates in hopes of deceiving them into supporting
what appears to be a bad bill. They refer to themselves as compromisers,
winners, and realists who just want to work within the political system to
accomplish what is “doable” on the Endangered Species Act. They say
they have nothing but the best intentions. That they only want to do what
is best for landowners. That it is now or never if we’re going to reform
the ESA. That everyone should follow them, because it’s better to get
some than none at all.
Anyone who disagrees with them is labeled an “extremist,” or a “purist.”
In other words, if you believe that the government has no right to steal your
property because it harbors a spotted owl or a snail darter -- and you fight for
that belief and make your voice heard -- you are nothing but a malcontent.
A doe-eyed optimist. Or maybe just a dumb hick who “doesn’t understand
how Washington works.”
Unfortunately these self-described compromisers and realists do not have the
interests of property rights advocates at heart. They are working as
merely an extension of a congressional office and powerful industry lobbyists.
As such, it seems their goal is not to protect property rights with regard to
the ESA. Rather, their goal is to shepherd property rights advocates down
a path to nowhere -- all the while reassuring everyone that there is partial
salvation at the end of the road. Amazingly, they compare themselves to
great liberators. In truth, they are behaving more as wolves in sheep’s
clothing.
The details of a long-anticipated ESA reform bill have now been made public in
the press and by various political interests. These details come directly
from Congressman Richard Pombo’s office. If they are accurate -- and
most folks (including those who are championing the bill) agree that they are
accurate -- then true property rights advocates have nothing to cheer, and
plenty to lament.
For one, the bill pretends to offer landowners partial compensation when their
property rights are taken under the ESA. Let us explain. The bill
says that property owners may only seek compensation for the taking of private
property if at least 50 percent of the property is taken. This means that
if the government deems that only 49.9 percent of your property was taken, then
you get nothing. Can you make do with half of your property?
Moreover, this 50 percent threshold is only the STARTING point. It is just
the initial offering. As those who have been around Washington awhile
know, once the fighting begins over this bill, and once the greens start their
multi-million dollar assault, this already meager 50 percent threshold will
almost certainly be whittled down to nothing. 50 percent would be a bad
compromise, yet some want to offer it as a strong starting point. It is
most certainly not.
But even those who have at least 50 percent of their property stolen by the
government will likely never receive compensation anyway. Why?
Because, reportedly, the bill does nothing to fix the issue of “ripeness.”
Once your land is taken, you still have to file an “incidental take” permit
and it can take years before you get any response. In the meantime,
you’ve lost the use of your land for all of those years. When your
permit is finally rejected, if you still have anything left, you can now go to
court -- and begin that long, drawn-out, expensive process. This has been
the major problem with the ESA. Yet nothing is being done about it.
And then there is the dreaded invasive species provision. According to the
details, the bill creates a new authority within the Endangered Species Act to
regulate invasive species! Unbelievable. Invasive species are any
plants or animals that are not native to a particular area. For example:
Kentucky bluegrass on golf courses and English ivy on lawns. The radical
greens have wanted invasive species regulation for years because they know it is
the key to eventually having the power to regulate and control virtually every
square inch of land in America. And under this so-called new and improved
ESA, the greens will have this power. Property rights advocates have been
fighting the invasive species nightmare tooth-and-nail for years. And now
our so-called property rights allies are trying to sell this as a win for
landowners? The absurdity of it all is beyond comprehension.
Here is the bottom line.
If you support the repeal of the Endangered Species Act, this bill is not for
you. Reauthorizing the ESA now will take the repeal issue off the
table for at least ten years, perhaps a generation.
If you support full property rights protections within the Endangered Species
Act, this bill is not for you. From what we’ve seen so far, this bill is
all smoke and mirrors and no real property rights protections. Don’t be
fooled.
If you support partial property rights protections within the Endangered Species
Act, this bill is not for you. Again, from what we’ve seen thus far,
takings will continue unabated and will likely even increase due to the invasive
species language.
If you support business as usual with the Endangered Species Act, by all means,
this bill is for you.
Of course, we hope that what we’ve seen so far in the press and from Congress
is not actually representative of the bill itself. We hope that when the
actual ESA “reform” bill is introduced it doesn’t have all the major
deficiencies mentioned above. However, we’ve been given no reason to be
optimistic. So we must prepare for the worst -- and also make certain that
our loyal supporters are prepared.
Our job is to tell the truth and fight the battle for property rights as it must
be fought -- straight on. In light of the horrendous Supreme Court ruling
on Kelo v. New London, we simply can not afford another devastating sellout on
property rights.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Source: http://www.americanpolicy.org/sledgehammer/main.htm