John Hill on adjacencyKen Johanson on adjacency
(click to enlarge)

These gentleman believe in protecting the vision of Elbert County they claim we all desire, but who protects citizens from their vision? They’ll trot 5th Am. property rights out to defend your land against a toll road incursion, but woe unto those who try to exercise their own property rights to sell their water or land to maximize their own interest when such a sale conflicts with their vision.

The hypocrisy of this selective application of the Constitution weakens all of us because it undermines law by turning it into a political tool.

Is it fair to make a few rural landowners pay all the costs of protecting the scenic open space?

Is it fair to make homebuyers pay twice what homes are worth (and give windfall profits to existing homeowners) so as to avoid expanding growth boundaries?

“Even real estate developers, who cannot move offshore, are not vitally concerned with property rights. They have learned not to inventory land. They buy options, get all the permits nailed down, and only then take title. The nation wants homes, workplaces, and malls, so the developers will be allowed to build somewhere, and the exact site matters little to them. In fact, the tighter the restrictions, the higher the rewards to those who can navigate the environmental and permitting maze, and the higher the roadblocks against less savvy or well-wired competitors.”

Leave a Reply