Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at 
In order to protect their property values, landowners in North Carolina are clearcutting their land. If that seems silly to you, know that you aren't alone. Apparently, their plan is to make the land unsuitable for endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers. The town is considering instituting a moratorium on land-clearing permits, and the feds are pointing out that even if the land were designated as protected habitat, it would still be possible to build, and indeed trees with nests in them could still be cut down under some circumstances.
Personally, I'd rather buy land that I knew would be kept wild, and knowing that a rare woodpecker was around would increase the value of a piece of property. These people are being shortsighted and foolish.
Comments
I posted about this earlier with no commentary - did not think any was needed...but it makes me ashamed to be a North Carolinian.
Posted by: coturnix | September 24, 2006 8:33 PM
Not surprising.
Consider the property-rights loons who'll vandalize a public trail meant for the common good, in order to "prove" that the caretakers are unable to manage it, necessitating the return of the former railroad property to its "rightful" owners. (Meaning the people who feel that a deal made in 1870 with the railroads should be honored, but not necessarily honoring one made with the Natives a short time before that.
Posted by: Sean | September 24, 2006 9:15 PM
Do not be surprised that some idiots are going to defend this for the sake of 'keeping the peace' or making sure their property stays quiet. As I've said before, quiet is not a word that describes a healthy community.
Posted by: Aerik
| September 24, 2006 10:56 PM
The land value is being restricted -- individual houses can be built, but no industrial, and probably no subdivisions.
If we decide that the government should restrict development (which IMHO they should). Have the government buy the land at market price, and resell it for whatever they can -- while imposing whatever liens against the property you want. That's why the process of emminent domain was created.
Posted by: Dan R. | September 25, 2006 12:21 AM
I'm not sure how using eminent domain is a better solution. This is closer to rezoning an area, a common practice.
Posted by: Josh | September 25, 2006 1:19 PM
But not one of you is paying anything to the landowners for their loss in value!
If Josh believes land should be preserved for natural habitat, then he should buy it and preserve it. Unfortunately, because of the way property taxes are assessed, if Josh's land increases in value because the market value of his neighbors' land has increased, then Josh risks losing his land in a tax sale, or he'll be compelled to develop some part of it to pay the taxes.
Not anticipating this reaction is actually more foolish than the reaction itself.
If the government had done a better job allaying the fears of the landowners, then perhaps they would not have overreacted as they did. Perhaps there should be some kind of tax break given to those who save some of the habitat, in order to offset their losses relative to those who develop.
Eminent domain is like the government firing you from your job because they found someone who'll do it more like they want.
Rezoning is like the government coming in and changing your job description to one they like better. Since you are no longer exactly qualified, then you'll have to accept a drop in pay.
Posted by: Spike | September 25, 2006 9:51 PM
I don't see any evidence that the landowners actually did lose value.
Posted by: Josh | September 26, 2006 12:36 AM
When it comes to market value, perception is often more important than reality.
Because the landowners believed that they would lose value (and really had no reason to believe otherwise, given the perception of either having their land seized via eminent domain or rezoned) they took action.
It doesn't matter if they really were going to lose value, what matters is that they thought it was a real possibility. If clearcutting meant that they were no longer on the environmental list and they could later develop their land how they wanted, then it was in their economic best interest to clearcut.
Guaranteed benefit from clearcutting v.s. possible loss from not doing so.
Why, other than to make environmentalists happy, should they have chosen the possible loss over the guaranteed benefit?
Posted by: Spike | September 26, 2006 11:34 AM
I still don't see what the potential loss is. No one was going to seize the land by eminent domain, nor would it be rezoned. They still could have cleared the land if they wanted to down the line. As it is, clearing that land lowered its value. People buying wooded lots are presumably hoping to live in a natural setting. Clear the land and the setting is less attractive to future or past buyers (ie, the current landowners). They spent money to do something they hadn't planned to do otherwise, and got nothing out of it. Sounds foolish to me.
Posted by: Josh | September 26, 2006 1:41 PM
Not being in the USA I don't know the ins and outs of your law, property rights, land rights etc and all I can say is its a terrible shame that wildlife is treated so poorly.
Posted by: Crafty Green Poet | October 1, 2006 11:32 AM