Re: Property Rights Restored in Oregon

"Joe S." <anon@xxxxxxxx> wrote in news:KJqdnVmNb5CfMGDeRVn-uA@xxxxxxxxxxx:

Say I own 200 acres. On my property is a 4-acre low area that is wet,
even in the dry season. Nothing grows there but cattails and willow
trees. I want to drain and fill the area so I can plant cotton. The
county, the state, and the Corp of Engineers tell me I can't fill this
"wetland." Has this action reduced the value of my property and should
I be compensated?

Absolutely. If the public deems it desireable to maintain wetlands, for
whatever reason, and private property is required for the purpose, then it
must pay for it. Perhaps the "public" believes that wetlands are necessary
habitat for certain species of wildlife, and the "public" wishes to encourage
wildlife. That is no different that the "public" desiring a new playground or
or new fire station. You have no duty to devote your property to "public"
purposes.

"Public" is in scare quotes because it always refers only to certain specific
people; the public *as a whole* has no desires. Certain people want to use
your property for some purpose different from yours. If they are numerous
enough they have the power under the law to impose their preference. But they
must pay for it.

Unfortunately the Oregon law will not reach takings by the Feds.

I own 1,000 acres, most of it hills, on which I propose to build a
"development" that will be mainly second homes and vacation cabins. The
area is in the foothills of a national park. In fact, much of the
attraction of my area is the views it provides of the mountains that
comprise the park. The county requires that I submit to them my plan
for the development. When I do that, they tell me I cannot put in some
of the roads that I have planned because those roads cut across the
contours in such a way that they promote erosion. The county also tells
me I cannot build on the hilltops and must keep my building at least 100
vertical feet below the top of each hill. Modifying the road plan and
building below the hilltops to meet county requirements will cost me
several hundred thousand $$$$$. Has the county's action reduced the
value of my property and should I be compensated?

Two different answers. If the erosion is a real issue and could cause damages
to neighboring property or public waterways, then you have a duty to prevent
those damages. The height restriction is different. If the aim there is to
preserve views from someone else's property, then those beneficiaries must
pay for them. Their deeds did not include view easements across your
property, and you have no duty to maintain your property for their aesthetic
enjoyment.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is anyone really this stupid?
    ... pay for the military force to defend the country. ... A long time ago I lived in Madison County, ... And the roads were in ... So yes all those things have to be paid for, but the total wage packet ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Making ALL Roads Into TOLL Roads
    ... where gasoline taxes aren't enough to pay for building and ... > fund roads is that people who don't own cars are forced to pay for ... My home county added a 1% local-option sales tax, ...
    (sci.geo.satellite-nav)
  • Re: Who was that fear monger?
    ... maintained roads. ... a lot of roads are privately built around here and ceded ... over to the county. ... you don't have to use it and you don't pay for it. ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Who was that fear monger?
    ... maintained roads. ... a lot of roads are privately built around here and ceded ... over to the county. ... you don't have to use it and you don't pay for it. ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Yes, We Do Need to Build More Roads
    ... even the high population, wealthy counties (Williamson County) have ... decidedly terrible roads going with those gas taxes. ...
    (misc.transport.road)