Property Rights Wins Victory in House

The House recently in late September, approved an overhaul of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, perhaps the nation's most predatory tool for limiting human access, housing, farming, recreation and property rights.

The recent HR 3824 (TESRA), Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 is a much hoped for relief, for our local homeowners, agriculture, and rancher families, who at times have found their personal property rendered useless, and endangered themselves by the 1973 legislation.

These welcomed changes were pushed through by the Chairman of the House Resources Committee, Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif. This rancher correctly and intuitively contends that the current 32 year old rules unduly burdens landowners, and leads to costly lawsuits while doing too little to save plants and animals.

Pombo said: "You've got to pay when you take away somebody's private property. The only way this is going to work is if we bring in property owners to be part of the solution and to be part of recovering those species".

This was, I thought, already guaranteed by the 7th Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". That clause alone should have rendered the original 1973 legislative version unconstitutional. But alas, it has not, perhaps now there is hope for the rights of property owners.

Correctly, Yes, we should protect endangered species, but not at the expense of our property owners.

The White House supports this legislation. In the end, 34 Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the measure, and 36 Democrats joined Republicans in voting for it.

One of whom, you might expect voting against it, was Congresswoman Lois Capps. Who appears to have trouble with legislation protecting fellow property owners, but has no problem supporting the killing of our local animals on our Channel Islands, while paying thousands of dollars to New Zealand hunters to do so.

Opponents and Mrs. Capps are expecting Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), who heads the committee that oversees the Endangered Species Act, to hold the bill up in his committee. He has, already voiced his opposition to the bill. The Senate has not taken it up, and is unlikely to accept such revisions in the law, so compromises are likely if the bill is ever to become law.

The bill that passed the House would require the government to compensate property owners, if steps needed to protect species, thwarted development plans. It also would make political appointees responsible for some scientific determinations, and would stop the government from designating areas as "critical habitat," which now is used as a wedge to limit often needed housing, of particular importantance in our difficult and highly priced local real estate market.

A growing critical mass of people are now aware of the problems that the existing Endangered Species Act imposes on land and homeowners and their communities, and understands it is also counter productive to recovering and protecting species.

"It's going to be a 2006 elections issue."

At the heart of the issue is the traditional protection of private property rights versus invasive environmentalist – no-growther concerns.

Preserving endangered species is good, provided it does not put people out of work, or infringe on the rights of property owners.

Some balance is needed, and I believe this legislation goes a long way towards providing it. It is time to protect another endangered species … the individual property owner.

ATTRIBUTION