Letter to the Editor

LETTER: PROPERTY-RIGHTS REALITY

This article comes from our electronic archive and has not been reviewed. It may contain glitches.

To the editor:

Readers of your recent extremist editorials and columns might be forgiven for thinking that the property-rights movement is composed of helpless homeowner and average Americans defending their property against a marauding federal government whose regulations are preventing landowners from doing what they wish with their land. It is not.

The property-rights movement is composed of mining, logging, oil-drilling and real estate development interests. These are the folks who can afford Washington lobbyists and expensive lawyers to write legislation that serves their interests, and which the federal representatives they support are passing through Congress with little or no debate. In fact, over 99 percent of conflicts between property owners and environmental regulations are resolved to the satisfaction of both the landowners and the regulators. Only a few cases can be trotted out, again and again, by the property-rights folks to illustrate their case. If we were to follow this argument by anecdote, we would have to dismantle the entire judicial system because of the few errors that occur.

These property-rights folks want to drain our wetlands for development or agribusiness purposes, increasing the frequency of the kind of floods we have experienced over the last two years. They want to log, mine and drill in national parks, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, reducing our plant and animal wildlife populations. However, they are quite happy when our tax dollars subsidize their business activities through water-management projects, road construction, below-cost timber sales and other forms of corporate welfare.

They don't mind using our hard-earned tax dollars to help them make a buck, but they resist using these funds for sensible and prudent environmental management programs. They are committed to exploiting our natural resources for short-term profit rather than managing resources conservatively for long-term sustainable economic wealth. This is no commonsense conservative movement. It is a radical, extremist movement that is happy to accept as much corporate welfare as it can get. It would be happy to see the elimination of any endangered species that stand in its way. It is committed to polluting the nation's air and waterways. And it completely fails to represent the interests of average Americans.

Indeed, 84 percent of Missourians (St. Louis Post-Dispatch poll) think environmental laws in Missouri are about right or need to be strengthened. We feel that natural resources should be managed cautiously, prudently and conservatively so that they can provide a sustainable lifestyle for future generations.

When these property-rights folks refuse handouts from public funds, when they individually offer to pay for the roads, water management and other projects that improve the value of their land, we might listen to them. But until that happens the property-rights proponents reveal themselves clearly for the selfish hypocrites they are.

KATHLEEN CONWAY

Cape Girardeau

EDITOR'S NOTE: The problem with the polemic expressed in this letter is its extreme generalization. The writer paints all property-rights advocates with the same disturbingly broad -- and negative -- brush. Moreover, the use of such labels as "corporate welfare," "radical" and "extremist" portrays everyone involved in property-rights causes as having only a profit motive. There are thousands of American property owners who have encountered unreasonable -- and often nonsensical -- regulatory limits ranging from local zoning rules to federally imposed mandates that impose undue hardships. While most of these incidents are, indeed, resolved through the courts and regulatory agencies, property owners too rarely are the winners.