The often excellent Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine makes an excellent point concerning environmentalists, who in general support tax abatements for conservation easements—which provide compensation to landowners for voluntary restrictions on private property use—but who also tend to oppose eminent-domain proposals based on the Takings Clause to compensate landowners for involuntary restrictions on private property use. Go figure.

The paradox also presents the following. Usually, the tax credit for land preservation is meant to imply that the property is not being put to its most valuable use, and its value is reduced by subjecting it to conservation.  But if the land’s value is maximized by not developing (in order to protect views, trees, watershed, recreation, whatever), then doesn’t that mean the property is worth MORE rather than LESS with the conservation measures?

Likewise, if eminent domain is used to take undeveloped property in order to keep it undeveloped, shouldn’t that increase the amount paid to the landowner, on grounds that the property is worth MORE as undeveloped land that protects some greater environmental welfare?

Post Your Comments:

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.