Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs): Government Takeover of Private Property

Voters and elected officials all over the country are being asked to approve the expenditure of public funds for the purpose of permanently restricting private property rights. The proposed contracts give government (usually counties), forever, the right-of-approval for any future construction and often a right-of-entry, with prior notice (like a landlord). Although it is ultimately the free choice of the property owner to enter into this contract, the market value is permanently reduced, any future heirs or owners have no say in the matter, and "escape clauses" if provided make it extremely difficult to overturn. Questions need to be raised regarding the intelligence of making a decision, in the present time, that will affect people who will own this land decades, or even centuries, from now.

Proponents of these measures, usually operating as "conservationists" or "preservationists" outline a very narrow-minded concept. The basic premise is that agriculture is a more important use for land than anything else people might want to do with it (sometimes, natural vistas or wildlife habitat arguments are also used), and its development must be prevented, despite the wishes or needs of any future owners. This idea of restriction in perpetuity is a fairly new one...normally, land use and zoning ordinances are used to control development. These methods allow current elected officials to make decisions regarding the impact on the community. Apparently, this is insufficient for the proponents, who condescendingly believe they know better than future generations.

In this area, for example, the proponent's report states that "agriculture has been a powerful economic force in Washington County (Wisconsin) since immigrant times" - while technically true, we could view this in a wider historical context. During the 1700's, when French and British explorers and early colonists came to Wisconsin, fur trading was the powerful economic force in the state. In the 1820's and 1830's, lead mining in the southwest part of the state became the strong economic force, producing half of the nation's lead. In the mid-to-late 1800's, logging could have been argued to be as important as agriculture. It is incredibly arrogant for our generation to make judgments and decisions about appropriate land use for generations yet to come. How do we know what the appropriate use will be for this land 100 years in the future? In a free society, land achieves its "highest and best use" only when developed, or not developed, appropriate to market forces and the needs of the community - forces which are dynamic.

The report's argument touting the number of jobs and economic impact is also both absurd and ridiculous. Continued development of businesses, residences and infrastructure would quickly surpass any corresponding reduction in agriculture jobs and economic value, so the point is moot. In any event, why does the County Board feel it is their job to make sure there are farm jobs in the area? What if economics determine that farming is no longer viable - will they offer additional public dollars as a subsidy to still maintain them? The "need" cited for initiating this program is also flawed because many of the targeted areas are those least likely to be developed anyway; those land owners will simply profit from the public money.

The "seed" funds for these programs come from different sources - sometimes, a wealthy person donates money for its use, other times small amounts of tax dollars are used. The goal is to get it established so that other donations can be solicited, grants can be applied for and state or federal programs (also public dollars) can be tapped. The PDR program here is also projected to require a new full-time county administrator, along with all the associated costs.

These PDR regulations often become a source of fraud and graft. Once land is under partial government control, tactics such as "biodiversity preservation", "wetland protection" and "endangered species" measures can easily be used to force it completely out of private hands. The proposed contracts retain the right of the County to sell the easement at a future date, with the proceeds returning to the PDR fund. The next logical step, once the PDR is in place and widespread, is to pass legislation that allows for trading of development rights (TDR). This allows politicians to play games with the restrictions - zoning changes can be made and development rights can then be traded between properties to suit the situation, or certain developers. As is evident, the government would have this ability, while average citizens would not.

What if our predecessors had determined, when the population an area reached say, the lofty number of 1,000 residents, that growth was "unsustainable" and limits on future development needed to be imposed? When people move to an area, they get what could be referred to as "last-in" syndrome; in other words, since they liked the attributes of the community, and chose to live there, no one else should be allowed to move in, so that nothing changes. We should realize that at one time even places like the island of Manhattan and the site of the O'Hare airport were rural farmland - the American dream is about progress and always moving forward. Why have people suddenly determined, in so many places, that now is the time that development has progressed far enough and limits must be imposed?

The true goal of these land conservationists, who tend to also be social activists, is to restrict human encroachment on nature. They blame human activity for everything from species extinction to global warming and have decided that this is one of the best tools to advance their cause. The United Nations has pushed similar goals since the 1970s, stating that, "Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice." The UN also endorses the public control of land because, "The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole."

Since communism (in theory, the ultimate "for the good of society" form of government) failed, the next-best-thing is socialism. For those who wish for government control of society, the idea of millions of independent, free land owners is untenable; therefore, this is one of our precious freedoms that has come under attack, albeit in a very subtle way. After all, who can be against maintaining beautiful vistas of pristine farmland or wooded habitat featuring biodiversity?