Analysis: Amendment 1 FL Water Land Conservation Initiative

vote noOn the 2014 Florida ballot Amendment 1 “Florida Water and Land Conservation Ininitiative” will direct 33% revenues for “stamp” taxes on business documents to a The Land Aquisition Trust Fund to buy private lands for the state to hold for bureaucracies to “conserve” for the next twenty years.

Opinion

Vote NO

Analysis

There are several reasons that this amendment gets a NO vote.

Environment

The Water and Land Conservation amendment will not change the amount of pollution output. The Water and Land Conservation amendment will only use the money of others to subsidize the land purchase which will dilute the amount of current pollution over a greater land area.

Government is already currently negligent in intervening and trying to “manage” scarce resources in state held land for conservation and Florida’s waterways.

The government broke the natural flow of water and is directly responsible for the discharges by doing so. Government has failed to manage the water already. Government legalized pollution. Government subsidizes pollution-producing technologies. Government subsidizes the polluters to stay in business so they can continue to pollute.

The answer is not to give them more land to spread their mistakes over but to get them out of the business of wrecking the environment. Giving government more land to wreck is to give the arsonist gasoline to put out the fire.

  • About 30% of land in Florida is owned by government
  • Around 25% of land is already set aside for conservation

sowell stupid government privatizationGovernment spending on money does not equate to positive results for the environment. Instead precious and scare resources are “managed” by bureaucratic “renters” and politicians who do not bear responsibility for their actions.

The problem of the Tragedy of the Commons will be exacerbated:

When anything is commonly owned- like air and water- we sell all the bad effects of socialism. People abuse the resource because they do not have to bear the prices.

To solve this problem, anyone who is personally harmed, or his business damaged, by air pollution ought to be able to sue to stop it, and receive damages. But the federal government intervened in this common-law process in the nineteenth century to favor special interests, making it impossible, to take a real example for a farmer to sue a railroad whose spark emissions burned down his orchard.

The federal government also nationalized the coasts and waterways specifically to smooth the way for industrial special interests.

If, as is the case with many waterways in England and other countries, people had property rights in the streams and rivers running through their land, they could prevent pollution just as they prevent trash-dumping in their front yard. And if fisherman and homeowners held property rights in the coasts and adjacent waters, they could prevent pollution and properly allocate fishing rights.

Even progressive environmentalist like Eve Samples has pointed out that some of the biggest culprits in mismanaging the environment is the bureaucracies themselves. Federal agencies also get involved in making the situation worse. TCPalm unbeknownst published a special report that indicates bureaucracies are plaguing precious resources.

Before government courts intervened and declared pollution legal cases were brought to court were pollutive actions were treated as trespass under nuisance laws.

In the classic case of Holman v. Athens Empire Laundry Co. (1919), the Supreme Court of Georgia declared: “The pollution of the air, so far as reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of life and indispensable to the progress of society, is not actionable.”[70]

The government sided with crony companies allowing them to pollute and commit trespass against other’s property.

  • Government legalized pollution
  • Government pretends to “regulate” pollution
  • Government prevents individuals from owning precious resources in water
  • Government incentivizes pollution
  • Government incentivizes pollution-producing technologies
  • Government subsidizes large farm polluters
  • Government prevents just one individual or a small group from being able to get injunctions and sue polluters for damages

The soggy state of state run conservation drained the Everglades and decades later has ruined an important waterway on the east and west coast of the state. In addition polluters are subsidized by reducing waste costs as they can dump contaminants into the waterways on top of receiving business subsidies just so they can remain in competition.

As a result taxpayers are forced to pay for firms to pollute, bureaucratic renters to mange precious resources and the clean-up of the subsidized pollution.

They will simply spread the current mess thinner until it gets even worse.

Real Estate Mobility

By taking land off of the market the Water and Land Conservation amendment will reduce the supply of land in the state.  As with any good when you reduce the supply prices will rise.  Land and housing will become more expensive hurting the poor the most. In addition reducing the supply of land will increase the values of property benefiting large landholders the most.

Cronies will receive non-market offers for their land while the supply of available land for housing and people is diminished as part of the state Constitution.

watermelon-green communist

via Florida Water and Land Conservation Initiative, Amendment 1 (2014) – Ballotpedia.

If you like the work here then please donate today.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Subscribe by email and never miss a post.

,