GOVERNMENT DOESN'T NEED TO OWN MORE LAND

A federal funding program that helps communities purchase park land and develop recreational facilities narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives recently. U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Cape Girardeau, voted against the measure. Her reasons, which revolve around imperiled property rights, bear repeating.

Emerson isn't against new local and state parks. She doesn't want any more land acquired by the federal government. She and others who voted against the measure note that the federal government already owns an eye-popping 29 percent of the nation's land. Add in state and local government ownership, and government at all levels is far and away the largest landowner. This and other trends that threaten private property rights have given rise to efforts to balance the interests of property against overreaching government.

One constructive approach advanced by Emerson and other property-rights advocates is a no-net loss of private property rule. That is to say, if government is to continue acquiring property, then government would have to "mitigate" any such acquisition with a sale of an equal amount of acreage to private sources, so that there would be no further net gain in government ownership.

That strikes us as sound. Government already owns enough property. In many counties between here and Springfield, government is far and away the largest property owner. We wish Emerson well in her efforts to advance this sound proposal.