Take it fine, but at least pay me

Being the greenie that I am I do think the Endangered Species Act is a well intentioned idea gone awry. But, it needs to be fixed. As it currnently stands the Act runs smack into one of my least favorite governmental provisions, Eminent Domain, only it's worse. In this Slate.com article economist Tim Harford (one of my faves-see when I was a lad I was uncool and into comic books, now I'm uncool and into economics) makes a point that conservation laws can actually cause more damage to what is being protected than no laws. He then ends the article with the idea that governments should just buy the land they want to protect. Land purchase is the standard argument put forth by those who want to end the Act and I have to admit I agree. Preventing a landowner from developing his land as he sees fit amounts to a "taking" without compensation. Kind of a double whammy. We're effectively taking your land, but we're not going to compensate you for it. In fact, in some areas the vaunted triple whammy applies thanks to developers and realtors. Thanks to their efforts undeveloped land is taxed higher than developed land which is pretty egregious.

Presenting both sides of this debate I should point out that landowners are handicapped by how they can develop their land all the time through zoning laws. While there exists a difference between some development and no development the basic concept is the same, I can't decide to turn my suburban lot at the end of the cul-de-sac into a landfill, thus I'm restricted so pay me.

I'm not a black-and-white type so I'm comfortable with the inhernent shades of gray that supporting, or more accurately complaining about, zoning laws and pushing for governmental compensation for enforcing the ESA bring about.