My recent trip to Telluride got me thinking a little bit about private property rights and the public good. Yeah, I’m a geek. Anyway, Telluride is this beautiful little mountain town in the midst of a box canyon. My understanding is that it came on hard times back in the 70s and early 80s as the mines closed down. But, a funny thing happened. Skiing took off as did other outdoor pursuits. The hippies came and made it cool. The coolness attracted money, big money. Now, it seems that every other person in the town is involved in real estate one way or another. The town is striving mightily to avoid killing the goose that’s laying those golden eggs. This involves some significant limitations on the rights of private property owners.
At some point about 20 years ago (I think), the town did a survey of all of the structures in town. Aside from some real derelict properties, pretty much everything that was there has to stay. You can rehab it, but externally, things have to remain much the same. There is also some freedom, apparently, to squeeze appropriate improvements onto lots that already have the historic structures. Additional development beyond the traditional town is somewhat restricted as well. To some extent, the geography itself places these limits. But, there are a lot of regulations as well.
So, I’m wondering how you figure out what limitations are appropriate. Telluride would be an easy place to kill off if an idiot with a lot of money and only short-term vision decided to run amok. So, maybe a place like Telluride needs heavier restrictions than the normal place. But, even in a place like Lafayette, you want to keep a lid on some of the worse potential abuses — don’t want someone jamming a landfill next to the city park, for example.
I know there are private property purists who look no further than to say “It’s mine, I should be able to do with it as I please.” But, this ignores the fact that anybody’s property exists in a context where its use has an impact on neighboring property. On the other hand, Soviet-style totalitarian regulation isn’t the answer either — clearly the USSR wasn’t some kind of Telluride writ large. So, I wonder, in a perfect world, what principles should guide appropriate regulation to ensure the long term success and improvement of a community.
Doug,
Interesting post. In essense, nobody ever truly owns land. We are merely temporary users of property. Therefore, I believe in striking a balance between property rights and the public’s health, safety, and welfare. Of course, defining “balance” is the tricky part, as this will vary with each individual, and among different communities.