4 ms·

That's not really a fair comparison/ justification. I don't know how much "warning" was given for the endangered species act, or if that even matters, since la

That's not really a fair comparison/ justification. I don't know how much "warning" was given for the endangered species act, or if that even matters, since land that's about to be worthless is already worthless. Also, I have no idea what actually happened in this case. But to speculate/generalize: IBW were already (obviously) extremely rare in 1944, so there would have been an intense amount of pressure preventing him from "doing" anything with the land, and in a rural, wooded area, there probably weren't many options at the time besides farming it, anyway. If the guy would have known in 1944 that the endangered species act would be passed in 1973, you'd maybe have a point. But he wouldn't have known. If the government suddenly told you tomorrow you couldn't sell your house, then claiming it's fair because you could have sold it all the way up to yesterday doesn't do you any good if you had no advanced knowledge of it. And if it were public knowledge, who would want to buy it anyway?

Johnny555 5y ago
Also, I have no idea what actually happened in this case. But to speculate/generalize: Your argument would have more weight if you'd give facts instead of speculating what could have happened. What actually did happen?
- Johnny555 5y ago
  I was curious what actually happened so looked it up -- looks like conservancy groups tried (and failed) to purchase the land to preserve it, and the land was logged despite the presence of the known endangered bird: "Eckelberry also saw the logging that cut down the trees used by the last Ivory-billed woodpecker" 40 years later a NWR was established on the land. https://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/pdf/IBW%20Singer%20Tract%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf https://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/pdf/IBW%20Singer%20Tract%20Fac...
  - akerl_ 5y ago
    So, just to confirm: he did what he wanted with the land, and other than attempting to purchase the land from him and being declined, nobody interfered with his use of his land?
    - Johnny555 5y ago
      I only know what's in the PDF I linked to, but as far as I can tell, that's exactly what happened. The company (Chicago Mill) that owned the land turned down the attempt to purchase the land, conservationists tried to get the government to condemn the land, but the government declined. Then they watched them log the trees that were home to the bird.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      If it became a NWR, then the government eventually took/ acquired it from him (or his successor). The details of how that happened, whether it was their choice, and how they were compensated for it are what matter. But it sounds like he at least got to harvest his timber first, as far as not being interfered with.
      - akerl_ 5y ago
        I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say. Above, you made some speculative claims that the endangered species caused the property owner to experience increased hardship in using their land. Research in this thread that others have done has shown that wasn’t the case, and yet you persist in pitching speculatively that perhaps they had their property taken away. What is the statement you’re trying to make, and can you do the legwork to suggest it’s plausible rather than just technically not-yet-disproven?
        beerandt 5y ago
        The increased hardship for landowners post 1973 is fact. The endangered species act turns affected land into a liability instead of being an asset. The original response was that if they were able to enjoy the use of their land before 1973, then there was no harm done. 1) Which doesn't mean the harm/hardship didn't come into play in 1973 once the law was passed. It did. The land would have lost significant value overnight by being declared endangered species habitat. 2) The research showed that the land is now, in fact, a National Wildlife Refuge. The government acquired it. That rarely happens in a fully voluntary way with full compensation, but I don't claim to know the circumstances here. 3) My speculation was merely that harm could have also been done before 1973, which has been turned into somewhat of a straw man. 3b) And I only included that speculation because it's applicable to the state of affairs today, because if the same thing happens to any generic landowner post-1973, it's no longer speculation. Your property value becomes significantly diminished.
- beerandt 5y ago
  I only speculated/generalized because that situation has happened, thousands of times, just not with the interesting backstory. Landowner discovers he has an endangered species, reports it, gets rewarded by having his property restricted, endangered species moves on (or dies), and restrictions remain indefinitely. Or landowner doesn't report it, "disappears" the animals, and uses it or sells it while it still has value. Sounds like in this case, it somehow managed to be a bit of both of those.
twelvechairs 5y ago
Government isnt there to protect every business from ever going out of business. Sorry but I dont see the argument for compensation. By your argument everyone who has planning controls changed in their neighbourhood should be paid out, tobacco companies should be paid for revenue loss due to taxation and government adverts and anyone with a house built next to them should sue their neighbour for overshadowing and traffic noise. Sorry but its unworkable. Its simply the risks of doing business.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  The purpose of taxing tobacco is to discourage consumption. The tax is directly the mechanism for achieving the desired purpose rather than a hardship imposed on some otherwise innocent people only incidentally. It's not a taking, it's a penalty. When your neighbor builds a house next to yours, that's not a taking because it's not the government doing it. If you wanted to control what got built on a piece of property that isn't yours, you should have bought it yourself, or entered into a contract with the property owner where they agree not to do that for a particular period of years and you compensate them for the restriction. Governments should have to compensate property owners for zoning restrictions and the like. That makes perfect sense, for the same reason they have to compensate for any other takings -- because you're imposing a hardship on a specific innocent third party for a collective benefit, which is unreasonable. If there is to be a collective benefit then it should be paid for out of the collective fund and not disproportionately imposed on unconsenting innocent people at random. And if it turns out that the cost of compensating the property owners for the restriction you want to impose exceeds the value you hope to achieve by imposing it, that's some pretty good evidence that you shouldn't be doing it -- which is exactly why it should have to be paid out. The fact that courts decided not to do that with zoning is the whole reason we have a housing shortage -- because now we've over-produced zoning restrictions since they can be imposed without accounting for their cost.
  - jen20 5y ago
    > because you're imposing a hardship on a specific innocent third party for a collective benefit, which is unreasonable. This sums up the American attitude to life better than anyone has ever done for me before.

Johnny555 5y ago

Also, I have no idea what actually happened in this case. But to speculate/generalize: Your argument would have more weight if you'd give facts instead of speculating what could have happened. What actually did happen?

Johnny555 5y ago
I was curious what actually happened so looked it up -- looks like conservancy groups tried (and failed) to purchase the land to preserve it, and the land was logged despite the presence of the known endangered bird: "Eckelberry also saw the logging that cut down the trees used by the last Ivory-billed woodpecker" 40 years later a NWR was established on the land. https://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/pdf/IBW%20Singer%20Tract%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf https://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/pdf/IBW%20Singer%20Tract%20Fac...
- akerl_ 5y ago
  So, just to confirm: he did what he wanted with the land, and other than attempting to purchase the land from him and being declined, nobody interfered with his use of his land?
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    I only know what's in the PDF I linked to, but as far as I can tell, that's exactly what happened. The company (Chicago Mill) that owned the land turned down the attempt to purchase the land, conservationists tried to get the government to condemn the land, but the government declined. Then they watched them log the trees that were home to the bird.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    If it became a NWR, then the government eventually took/ acquired it from him (or his successor). The details of how that happened, whether it was their choice, and how they were compensated for it are what matter. But it sounds like he at least got to harvest his timber first, as far as not being interfered with.
    - akerl_ 5y ago
      I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say. Above, you made some speculative claims that the endangered species caused the property owner to experience increased hardship in using their land. Research in this thread that others have done has shown that wasn’t the case, and yet you persist in pitching speculatively that perhaps they had their property taken away. What is the statement you’re trying to make, and can you do the legwork to suggest it’s plausible rather than just technically not-yet-disproven?
      - beerandt 5y ago
        The increased hardship for landowners post 1973 is fact. The endangered species act turns affected land into a liability instead of being an asset. The original response was that if they were able to enjoy the use of their land before 1973, then there was no harm done. 1) Which doesn't mean the harm/hardship didn't come into play in 1973 once the law was passed. It did. The land would have lost significant value overnight by being declared endangered species habitat. 2) The research showed that the land is now, in fact, a National Wildlife Refuge. The government acquired it. That rarely happens in a fully voluntary way with full compensation, but I don't claim to know the circumstances here. 3) My speculation was merely that harm could have also been done before 1973, which has been turned into somewhat of a straw man. 3b) And I only included that speculation because it's applicable to the state of affairs today, because if the same thing happens to any generic landowner post-1973, it's no longer speculation. Your property value becomes significantly diminished.
beerandt 5y ago
I only speculated/generalized because that situation has happened, thousands of times, just not with the interesting backstory. Landowner discovers he has an endangered species, reports it, gets rewarded by having his property restricted, endangered species moves on (or dies), and restrictions remain indefinitely. Or landowner doesn't report it, "disappears" the animals, and uses it or sells it while it still has value. Sounds like in this case, it somehow managed to be a bit of both of those.

twelvechairs 5y ago

Government isnt there to protect every business from ever going out of business. Sorry but I dont see the argument for compensation. By your argument everyone who has planning controls changed in their neighbourhood should be paid out, tobacco companies should be paid for revenue loss due to taxation and government adverts and anyone with a house built next to them should sue their neighbour for overshadowing and traffic noise. Sorry but its unworkable. Its simply the risks of doing business.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
The purpose of taxing tobacco is to discourage consumption. The tax is directly the mechanism for achieving the desired purpose rather than a hardship imposed on some otherwise innocent people only incidentally. It's not a taking, it's a penalty. When your neighbor builds a house next to yours, that's not a taking because it's not the government doing it. If you wanted to control what got built on a piece of property that isn't yours, you should have bought it yourself, or entered into a contract with the property owner where they agree not to do that for a particular period of years and you compensate them for the restriction. Governments should have to compensate property owners for zoning restrictions and the like. That makes perfect sense, for the same reason they have to compensate for any other takings -- because you're imposing a hardship on a specific innocent third party for a collective benefit, which is unreasonable. If there is to be a collective benefit then it should be paid for out of the collective fund and not disproportionately imposed on unconsenting innocent people at random. And if it turns out that the cost of compensating the property owners for the restriction you want to impose exceeds the value you hope to achieve by imposing it, that's some pretty good evidence that you shouldn't be doing it -- which is exactly why it should have to be paid out. The fact that courts decided not to do that with zoning is the whole reason we have a housing shortage -- because now we've over-produced zoning restrictions since they can be imposed without accounting for their cost.
- jen20 5y ago
  > because you're imposing a hardship on a specific innocent third party for a collective benefit, which is unreasonable. This sums up the American attitude to life better than anyone has ever done for me before.