"Givings": When Regulations Create Value - #18
[Note: This is part of a series.]
Northwest voters are facing a line-up of so-called "takings" ballot measures. The basic argument in favor of these initiatives is that when a regulation reduces the value of property, the owner should be compensated for the diminished value. Supporters argue (incorrectly) that such regulations amount to a "taking"--a legal standard that requires compensation.
First, there's a factual claim to sort out. Simply put: most regulations are not takings. Property regulations are litigated frequently and extensively, and the courts have decided--over and over again--that communities are not obliged to pay for the privilege of regulating property.
Second, there is a larger confusion about property values. Regulations sometimes diminish the value of property, but regulations often increase the value of property too. Many regulations amount to a "giving."
So why don't we see outraged developers and speculators vowing to send fat checks to the government for the profits they've reaped because of planning and sensible regulation?
