LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: DON'T LET THEM DEPRIVE US FOR THEIR GAIN

To the Editor:

Does the constitution hold property rights to be more important than the right of Americans to enjoy a safe and healthy environment? Are individual rights more important than the health of the community, of our fellow citizens, of our children? Common sense says "No!" When confronted with this question, the courts likewise say "No!" But a small, active, and wealthy coalition disagrees with both common sense and the courts. The group has its goal at changing both state and federal laws to remove public protection. In both Jefferson City and Washington D.C. many of our local legislators are members of a coalition attempting to deprive us of our right to a safe and healthy environment.

Calling itself the 'wise use' movement, this coalition argues that wisdom means denying Americans the right to reasonable protection from threats to both health and safety. These folks are attempting to convince legislators and voters that any federal or state regulation controlling the right of landowners to use their property in whatever antisocial manner they see fit constitutes a 'taking' as defined by the constitution. As such, they argue, the landowner should be compensated out of public funds.

'Takings' clauses (Amendments to the U.S. Constitution) have been used historically to assure that owners of private land taken for public roads and schools be adequately compensated. No-one would argue against this principle; it is not the issue. However, driven by the desire of a few folks to make a profit at our expense, the current wave of 'takings' legislation attempts something very different.

Suppose I buy a lot in town, next to your house. Suppose further that I open a toxic waste dump; for a fee I accept, then bury or burn, any hazardous waste material I can find. As a result, the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land on which you live becomes polluted.

How much should you have to pay to stop me from doing this? If government environmental, health and safety regulations halt my business, how much should the taxpayers of the city, county, state or nation pay to recompense me for closing down?

Most folks would answer clearly and emphatically, "nothing!" Most of us agree that individuals do not have unlimited private rights to destroy the health of their neighbors. We have a system of laws designed to protect the health and safety of fellow humans from such selfish acts. We shouldn't have to pay polluters to stop polluting.

Proponents of 'takings' legislation, however, would demand compensation in the example above. But not only that, if the landowner merely proposed to construct the toxic dump and was prevented by regulations, they would demand that the landowner be compensated for all potential earnings foregone. According to such legislation, landowners could propose an entire string of absurd and health-threatening activities, and reap compensation from each scheme disallowed by state or federal regulations.

It seems that a more accurate banner for this group is "private benefit at public cost;" their position denies common-sense. Whenever and wherever possible, they promote legislation that would lead any government regulation abridging property rights to require freedom, such laws would render current health, safety and environmental laws unenforceable due to the cost of compensation.

While pretending to be a defense of property rights, the wise-use movement is actually the brainchild of developers, realtors, agribusiness interests and mining and oil companies. It is designed to increase their short term economic gain at public expense. If such legislation were enacted, Americans could no longer expect themselves to be protected from the selfishness and greed of anti-social neighbors.

As a strange ironic twist, while arguing against these public 'takings' of private property, many in the 'wise use' movement maintain a commitment to private 'taking' of public property. Many, for example, favor the continued right of individuals to mine on public land, or run cattle on public land, while paying next to nothing for the privilege. We also find many demanding huge taxpayer subsidies to provide irrigation or to control flooding on their land.

Clearly, a commitment to private gain at public expense lies behind the thinly veiled attacks on society being waged by the 'wise use' movement. We must oppose their attempts to sabotage laws designed to protect us and our planet from their greed. 'Takings' legislation must be rejected whenever and wherever it is proposed.

Yours sincerely,

KATHY CONWAY

Chair, Trail of Tears Group,

Ozark Chapter, Sierra Club

Cape Girardeau