Robust property rights could help build housing

Sign in the window of a boutique in the North End neighbourhood of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Photo by A Disappearing Act, February 27, 2024, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

Strengthening Property Rights Part of the Answer to Canada’s Housing Crunch | Epoch Times | Joseph Quesnel, Frontier Centre for Public Policy:

August 1, 2023 - "Housing is a big issue for Canadians.... A poll from Ipsos in the spring [of 2023] showed that about 63 out of every 100 Canadians who don’t own a house have given up on ever getting one. Almost seven out of 10 said that only rich people can afford to own homes.... Canadians may not understand how property rights — or, in many cases, the lack thereof — play a part in the housing shortage, and how robust property rights can help alleviate the problem.

"The recently released Canadian Property Rights Index from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy identified how local laws that control how people can use their land are a major cause for concern across Canada. These laws, known as 'regulatory takings,' can be very limiting. Regulatory or 'constructive' takings refer to local land use or zoning laws that limit how individuals may use their land. Many jurisdictions, provinces, and municipalities in Canada have such laws, with the most restrictive coming from the provinces. As a result, this land can’t be used for building houses.

"Excluding land from development and urban growth puts upward pressure on housing prices. There is a clear connection between urban containment policies and housing affordability. 'Urban containment' is a name for policies that limit the spread of cities and clearly separate city and country land. Wendell Cox, author of the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, has documented how these policies affect housing affordability in all cities around the world.... Policies that limit or ban the development of unused land push up the cost of land and housing. This is certainly not confined to Canada.... 

"British Columbia and Ontario offer two case studies.

• Since the 1970s, B.C. has maintained an Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) as a land use exclusion zone. Designed to protect valuable agricultural land and protect the public from food insecurity, the exclusion zone has created problems for municipalities seeking to grow to accommodate growing populations.... Even though the ALR only covers about five percent of B.C.’s total land, its rules have blocked the housing and development needs of communities.
• In the case of Ontario’s Greenbelt, cynical critics are more often focused on who wants to develop the land than the fact that municipalities are being squeezed and feel that certain lands need to be excluded from the Greenbelt if they are to meet the housing and development needs of their communities.

"Experience with urban containment policies in the United States might serve as an inspiration. Facing housing affordability issues, many states have seen pushback against such policies. States such as Colorado, with more robust democratic systems that allow for referenda and citizen initiatives, rejected overly restrictive urban containment policies and favoured the property rights of land users. Canadians across all provinces and territories should also push back, stop demonizing land developers, and begin to recognize their property rights so we can solve our housing problems."

Read more: https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/strengthening-property-rights-part-of-the-answer-to-canadas-housing-crunch-5434635?ea_src=ca-frontpage&ea_med=top-news-opinion-undefined-title-1

Canadian Property Rights Index 2023: https://fcpp.org/2023/07/17/canadian-property-rights-index-2023/

Trump budget legalizes sale of federal parkland

Trump's Budget Will Destroy National Parks | Outside Online - Wes Siler:

February 15, 2018 - "Recently, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke employed a bait-and-switch defense of President Trump’s bait-and-switch budget proposal for the Department of the Interior.

"The bait? An $18 billion fund for fixing the National Park Service’s massive maintenance backlog. The switch? It’d be paid for by deregulating oil and gas extraction on public lands, firing NPS employees, and empowering Zinke to sell off any public lands he wishes....

"As a recap for those of you fortunate enough to not have to closely follow Washington’s political machinations, the White House budget isn’t law. It’s more a piece of science fiction about how the president and his minions hope the government might work next year.... Still, as a statement of how the executive branch wishes it could govern ... the budget proposal is ... the first time we’ve seen an outline of exactly what Trump and Zinke plan to do to our national parks.

"The big proposal here is the creation of that $18 billion infrastructure fund for the NPS. Like the $1.5 trillion in national infrastructure spending Trump called for in his State of the Union address, the vast majority of that total will need to come from private industry. Specifically, the budget calls for the federal government to contribute only $257 million over the next ten years, while the remaining $17.743 billion would come from the energy extraction industries....

"The NPS currently has an $11.6 billion maintenance backlog and is desperately in need of repairs to its roads, trails, visitor facilities, and other infrastructure assets. Placing the majority of that burden on private industry operating on public lands seems like a great way to fix all that without raising taxes or visitor fees.

"The trouble is that ... we must assume that other allocations won’t require more money than planned, that rates for energy leases (and energy sales) will remain stable, and, of course, that the the number of leases will massively expand....

"The budget calls for firing 1,835 NPS employees, at a time when national park visitation is at its highest level ever. It would also remove 559 people from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1,209 from the U.S. Geological Survey, and 330 from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.....

"The budget also suggests selling off the George Washington Parkway and Baltimore Washington Parkway, two D.C.-area roads that are owned by the Park Service. That may sound practical — toll roads make a ton of financial sense — but in so doing, the budget gives the DOI the authority to sell off any other public lands that 'demonstrate an increase in value from the sale' and 'optimize the taxpayer value for Federal assets' In short, if he can make money from them, Zinke can sell public lands willy-nilly — the language giving him authorization to do so is hidden inside an otherwise practical provision."

Read more: https://www.outsideonline.com/2281851/trumps-budget-will-destroy-national-parks
'via Blog this'

Cruz: give Nevada federal land to state (video)

Cruz hits Nevada airwaves with a libertarian land-rights pitch - Washington Post - David Weigel:

February 18, 2015 -"Sen. Ted Cruz is gearing up for the sleepy, overshadowed Nevada caucuses with a campaign tour and a new TV spot — one that demonstrates how he's trying to own the 'liberty lane' of the primaries now that Sen. Rand Paul is out of the Republican presidential race.

"In 'Nevada Land,' Cruz (R-Tex.) pledges to give 'full control' of Nevada land to the state, putting him in league with hard-line conservatives and libertarians from the grass roots to the American Legislative Exchange Council.

"'Eighty-five percent of Nevada is owned and regulated by the federal government,' Cruz says in the ad. "And Donald Trump wants to keep big government in charge. That's ridiculous'....

"Pulling back land rights from Washington has been a cause for Western Republicans for a generation, epitomized by the high-profile crusades of the Bundy family to claim land rights over territory claimed by the feds. Cruz and Paul (R-Ky.) suggested that Cliven Bundy's 2014 standoff with federal agents came from a legitimate anger....

"Cruz's endorsers in Nevada include Republican state Rep. Michele Fiore, an ally of the Bundys who became a mediator when Ammon Bundy led a temporary takeover of an Oregon wildlife refuge. And the movement to give lands back to the states is supported by some of the most powerful and deep-pocketed libertarian donors in America.

"It's unclear whether that can boost Cruz in Nevada. A CNN-ORC poll this week found Trump 28 points ahead of Cruz in that state. Local Republicans say that the Texan and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) are much better organized than Trump in the state, with local offices and a canvassing team trying to turn out voters for the easily forgotten caucuses. A Cruz surprise might depend on the sort of rural libertarian voters who gave GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul strong finishes in 2008 and 2012."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/18/cruz-hits-nevada-airwaves-with-a-libertarian-land-rights-pitch/
'via Blog this'

Oregon standoff as justified civil disobedience

Oregon Protests: Civil Disobedience Justified - David French, National Review Online:

January 4,2016 - "Deranged militiamen spoiling for a fight against the federal government make for good copy, but what if they’re right? What if the government viciously and unjustly prosecuted a rancher family so as to drive them from their land? Then protest, including civil disobedience, would be not just understandable but moral, and maybe even necessary....

"Read the court documents in the case that triggered the protest.... What emerges is a picture of a federal agency that will use any means necessary, including abusing federal anti-terrorism statutes, to increase government landholdings.

"The story as told by the protesters begins ... with the creation and expansion of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a tract of federal land set aside by President Theodore Roosevelt.... The federal government has since expanded the preserve in part by buying adjacent private land. Protesters allege that when private landowners refused to sell, the federal government got aggressive, diverting water during the 1980s into the 'rising Malheur lakes.' Eventually, the lakes flooded 'homes, corrals, barns, and graze-land.' Ranchers who were “broke and destroyed” then “begged” the government to buy their 'useless ranches.'

"By the 1990s, the Hammonds were among the few private landowners who remained.... the government then began a campaign of harassment designed to force the family to sell its land, a beginning with barricaded roads and arbitrarily revoked grazing permits and culminating in an absurd anti-terrorism prosecution based largely on two 'arsons' that began on private land but spread to the Refuge.

"While 'arsons' might sound suspicious to urban ears, ... land must sometime be burned to stop the spread of invasive species and prevent or fight destructive wildfires. Indeed, the federal government frequently starts its own fires, and protesters allege (with video evidence) that these 'burns' often spread to private land, killing and injuring cattle and damaging private property. Needless to say, no federal officers are ever prosecuted.

"The prosecution of the Hammonds revolved mainly around two burns, one in 2001 and another in 2006. The government alleged that the first was ignited to cover up evidence of poaching and placed a teenager in danger.... But the trial judge found that the teenager’s testimony was tainted by age and bias and that the fire had merely damaged 'juniper trees and sagebrush' — damage that 'might' total $100 in value. The other burn was trifling.... fires burned about an acre of public land.

"In 2010 — almost nine years after the 2001 burn — the government filed a 19-count indictment against the Hammonds that included charges under the Federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which mandates a five-year prison term.... At sentencing, the trial court refused to apply the mandatory-minimum sentence, holding that five years in prison would be 'grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses' and that the Hammonds’ fires 'could not have been conduct intended [to be covered] under” the Anti-terrorism act'.... He sentenced Steven Hammond to two concurrent prison terms of twelve months and one day and Dwight Hammond to one prison term of three months. The Hammonds served their sentences without incident or controversy....

"Despite the absence of any meaningful damage to federal land, the U.S. Attorney appealed the trial judge’s sentencing decision.... The case went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the court ruled against the Hammonds, rejecting their argument that the prosecutor violated the plea agreement by filing an appeal and dismissing the trial court’s Eighth Amendment concerns. The Hammonds were ordered back to prison. At the same time, they were struggling to pay a $400,000 civil settlement with the federal government, the terms of which gave the government right of first refusal to purchase their property....

"There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. By no stretch of the imagination were the Hammonds terrorists, yet they were prosecuted under an anti-terrorism statute. The government could have let the case end once the men had served their sentences, yet it pressed for more jail time. And the whole time, it held in its back pocket potential rights to the family’s property. To the outside observer, it appears the government has attempted to crush private homeowners and destroy their livelihood in a quest for even more land. If that’s the case, civil disobedience is a valuable course of action. By occupying a vacant federal building, protesters can bring national attention to an injustice that would otherwise go unnoticed and unremedied."

Read more: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429214/oregon-rancher-protests-civil-disobedience-justified
'via Blog this'

7 overlooked points about Oregon standoff

7 Crucial Elements Of The #OregonUnderAttack Narrative That Go Overlooked - The Libertarian Republic - Andrew Follett:

"A militia protesting against the Bureau of Land Management seized an unoccupied building in a remote Oregon wildlife refuge over the weekend, prompting massive social media backlash and panicky headlines alleging that the militia were terrorists.... Details like BLM’s mismanagement of land and the long history of quarrels between ranchers and feds almost went unnoticed.

"So we collated the top 7 crucial elements that the narrative overlooked.

1: Nobody Has Been Killed, Hurt, Or Harmed In Any Way

"The protesters in Oregon occupied an empty building in a wildlife refuge that was closed for the holidays and far from any population center. Nobody has been killed or harmed in any way at this point.

2: If The Militia Are Terrorists, Eric Holder And Most Political Protesters Are Also Terrorists

"The problem is that this incredibly low standard makes essentially all political protests terrorism.

"By the standards the media seeks to apply, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is a terrorist for participating in a 1970 armed takeover of former Columbia University Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) office.... This definition would make BlackLivesMatter, Greenpeace, and most student activist groups terrorists. BlackLivesMatter participated in 'acts dangerous to human life' when they stopped traffic in Seattle. Greenpeace did the same when they hung off a bridge in Portland to stop an icebreaker from leaving the harbor. Student groups regularly occupy buildings.

3: The Federal Government Owns A Lot Of The West, Which Increases Tensions With Locals

"Close to half of the western United States is owned by the federal government through agencies like the Bureau Of Land Management.... Calls to return federal land in the West to state government management are nearly constant, particularly from ranchers, and the legal case for doing so is strong. At the beginning of statehood, the federal government promised all states that it would give them public lands within their borders. The U.S. Supreme Court has called these promises 'solemn compacts,' 'bilateral (two-way) agreements,' and 'solemn trusts' that must be performed 'in a timely fashion.'

4: The Bureau Of Land Management Is Horrible At Managing Land

"The militia says they are protesting Bureau of Land Management (BLM) control over federal lands, which has pushed out people who use the land for work and recreation. The agency is generally agreed to do a very poor job of managing the land. The BLM puts severe restrictions on natural resource development, tends to be a very poor land steward, places strict limitations on access, and doesn’t make much money off the land it manages....

"To make matters worse, BLM agency officials often view the ranchers as freeloaders and their livestock as invasive species which damage the habitat for native fish and wildlife, according to the libertarian Cato Institute.

5: There’s No Evidence Race Has Anything To Do With The Federal Response

"Left wing personalities and media outlets have stated that 'if the Oregon militiamen were Muslim or black, they’d probably be dead by now.' [Yet] activists associated with BlackLivesMatter occupied a St. Louis police department in December of 2014. Native American activists occupied federal property on Alcatraz Island after the prison closed for nearly 19 months without a federal response. Student activists regularly occupy building at state schools....

6: The Militia Has Repeatedly Said They’re Not Going To Get Violent

7: Obama Is Using The Panic To Implement Gun Control By Executive Order

Read more: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/7-crucial-elements-of-the-oregonunderattack-narrative-that-go-overlooked/
'via Blog this'

Background on the standoff in Nevada (video)

Bundy supporters rally and kick federal agents off public land | The Libertarian Republic - Faith Braverman:

April 10, 2014 - "Cliven Bundy in Nevada is at war with the federal government for not abiding by their laws. Now, people are flocking to the 600,000-acre spot called Gold Butte, where federal [Bureau of Land Management (BLM)] agents are currently seizing Bundy’s cows for grazing 'illegally'.

"There’s been little media coverage of this astounding act of patriotism. Supporters include neighbors, friends, and even some militia groups from other states. Bundy’s plight has rallied those who value liberty and freedom, and the video below reveals their frustration with the federal government’s involvement in Bundy’s case....

"The government is continuing to round up Bundy’s cows, and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval is not pleased.

"'No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans,' Sandoval said in a Tuesday statement. 'The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly'....

"[April 9], the federal agents appeared to step up its game, and tasered Bundy Ranch supporters, as well as throwing a woman with cancer to the ground. So far, the increased force has only rallied Bundy’s supporters more, and thus far the agents have turned tail when met with these very vocal protestors."

Read more: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/bundy-supporters-rally-kick-federal-agents-public-land/
'via Blog this'