BRIEFING PAPER
The “No Net Gain in Government Lands” Proposal—An Evaluation
The idea has been raised to have as a primary focus of the private property rights movement the rallying cry, “No Net Gain in Government Lands.”
It is proposed that federal legislation be prepared and/or supported that for every acre acquired by the federal (or state, local) government, another acre now owned by government be transferred to the private sector, so that there would be no increase in total acreage owned by the federal government.
This proposal, which has been kicking around Congress since before the Republican “revolution,” has an accompanying plan proposed by certain individuals which they feel strengthens the “no net gain” proposal. The accompanying plan has two main features (1) an inventory to ascertain complete statistics on all federal, state and local government land ownership and (2) the establishment of a non-partisan commission which would have to pass on all acquisition proposals. It is thought by the proponents of this plan that the study revealing the statistics on government land ownership would have great impact, that the commission would subject land acquisition proposals to thorough, unbiased review, including review of the land “exchanges” to achieve “no net gain,” and that as a result, somehow, because of the “no net gain” criteria, the availability of thorough information on government land ownership, and the fair and open deliberations of the commission, the trend toward government land ownership and loss of private property and productive resources thereby would be reversed.
These arguments in support of “no net gain” accompanied by the inventory and commission may seem appealing but examination reveals why those who are committed to the defense of private property should reject this proposal.
1. “No Net Gain” is a spurious focus.
Because all acres are not equal in value, productivity or habitability,
private property rights stand to gain little by a law guaranteeing
that total acreage owned by government cannot be increased. If
the government disposes of three million acres in the Nevada desert
or on a Rocky Mountain slope, while acquiring three million acres
of productive forestland in the Northeast (which is presently
targeted for government acquisition by the national environmental
groups), or three million acres of prime habitat with access to
water in the West, the net transfer of worth, as a measure
of rights in private property, will be negative. On balance,
property will have migrated to the government sector.
2. The “no net gain” provision is being proposed
at an inopportune, even dangerous, time for private property rights.
Several years ago, when “no net gain” was offered as
a stand-alone bill, it had a beneficial focus if not the real
possibility to offer practical protection of private land. It
carried with it the beneficial likelihood of more thorough inventory
of at least federal lands and the likely additional result that
government land acquisition would suffer more scrutiny.
At the present time, however, the proposal for “no net gain” presents the danger of being offered as a pretended “compromise” to garner the support or at least the lessening of opposition to the Sen. Murkowski/Rep. Don Young Conservation and Reinvestment Act, known by the property rights activists as the “Billion Dollar Land Acquisition Trust Fund.” This is the worst bill, as judged by its clear original text, ever faced by property owners in northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, and other areas of the country which are under government land acquisition pressure. The bill would set aside from continental shelf oil drilling royalties what has been estimated as one billion dollars annually for environmental land acquisition into a trust fund that is immune from appropriations debate. In the present context, it would be destructive of the fundamental goal of preserving private property for the property rights movement to support the “no net gain” provision, because the provision would help facilitate the passage of a bill that would eliminate private property by one billion dollars worth annually.
3. The importance of an inventory of federal (as well as
state and local) government land ownership does not justify using
this goal to support “no net gain.”
An inventory of government land ownership would be a useful accomplishment.
The property rights movement should not, however, sell out one
of its paramount goals, that of containing or reducing
government land ownership, for a worthwhile lesser goal. It should
be realized, in addition, that a great deal of data on federal
land ownership has already been officially tabulated. Furthermore,
an inventory of government land ownership could be done by private
organizations such as the Heritage Foundation. It should also
be noted that the argument that the inventory of government land
ownership will necessarily prevent or reduce future government
land acquisition has questionable merit. Earmarked money for land
acquisition as in the “Billion Dollar Land Acquisition Trust
Fund” proposal is a powerful impetus for its intended purpose.
Even though an inventory would be a useful tool for the private
property rights movement and taxpayer activists, a fund reserved
yearly to the tune of one billion dollars would supersede the
limited power of the inventory to serve our goals.
4. A land commission proposed by some private property rights
activists to evaluate the merit of acquisitions is not likely
to have the sought-for result of diminishing acquisitions.
In New York, a system set up in 1990 involving regional land acquisition
commissions drawn from a supposed cross-section of interests,
and tied to a single state-level commission, has not contained
the pressure directly on the Administration and the Legislature
to acquire more land. Mainly dominated by environmentalists, the
regional commissions do, however, absorb otherwise useful energies
of certain people concerned with preserving private land ownership.
The commissions are by-passed anyway by the Administration and
Legislature where environmentalists exert pressure to acquire
land, and vast acquisitions continually take place outside this
commission system. Moreover, the New York commissions have a positive
benefit for environmentalist opponents of private property rights
in that, because the environmentalists are more active and have
more personnel, the meetings and reports provide another forum
for the views of the environmentalists. A federal commission would
be even more susceptible to by-pass and to unscrutinized manipulation.
5. Substituting “no net gain in appraised value of
government land” for “no net gain in government land”
as measured by acreage offers little or no advantage.
To defeat the objection under item #1 above that land of lower
value could be disposed of acre-for-acre to match land of greater
value being acquired by government, some property rights activists
advocate that the disposal/acquisition balance could be maintained
in a way that would protect valuable, productive land from migration
to the federal government by using a dollar-for-dollar appraisal
rather than an acre-for-acre match.
This proposal has too many inherent pitfalls to be worth the support of those concerned with defending private property rights. Appraisals can be manipulated and this is often done by government. Witness eminent domain litigation. Appraisals are also currently used by government to pump up values to compensate non-profits.
Expert methods of manipulating appraisals may exist that are beyond the scope of this general evaluation. As a possible example, speculative mineral deposits on inactive lands in arid areas of the country could be used to pump up an appraisal for the purpose of attributing a high value to a disposal parcel.
An obvious further manipulation would be to dispose of the land at less than market value to a non-profit or other private individual and maintain contradictory sale and appraisal values in the record keeping. This wouldn’t exact an intense reaction from the public, considering the modest reaction that takes place now to the land trust and government abuses which the private property rights movement has exposed.
Government regulatory actions can be used to increase or diminish land values at will. Today, government regulation is often deliberately used to diminish land values for the purpose of driving property into the government sector. In fact, the diminishment of land value through government regulation is the genesis of the national private property rights movement.
6. Principle.
When establishing goals for the private property rights movement,
it is essential to steer clear of catchy slogans and complicated
proposals that are not based on principle and are proposed in
the context of a compromise of principle.
There is no inherent principle in “no net gain” because it is fundamentally based in trade-offs subject to distortion. The attachment of “no net gain” to complicated, seemingly desirable but discredited proposals, or proposals of a limited desirable nature, does not salvage the lack of principle. The attachment of “no net gain” to a proposal that goes against one of the prime principles which the private property rights movement formed to oppose is an abrogation of principle.
The private property rights movement should oppose bills that provide funds for government land acquisition and should shun all seemingly positive deals that are tied to such bills. In addition, if seemingly innocent but potentially ineffectual proposals arise separately, the movement should avoid the dedication of its modest resources to proposals that are appealing program designs but are off the mark as far as potential for practical protection of freedom.
Carol W. LaGrasse
March 16, 1999
| Back to: | |
|
|