Another government land-grab

RALEIGH -- On Tuesday Wake County voters will be asked to support or oppose a $50 million bond issue to preserve open space. As the county grows and becomes more developed, many residents are concerned that it could lose its natural settings. Wake County officials are asking residents to pay higher property taxes so the government can buy additional land that would be protected from development.

However, there are many ways to preserve these natural settings other than through higher taxes and a major government land grab. Private land trusts buy and preserve land all the time. And land doesn't have to be protected by the government to ensure that it's preserved for future generations.

As the county states in its open space plan, "Privately held open spaces can serve important open space functions and proper stewardship can occur on these lands without them being permanently protected through some legal mechanisms."

Government already owns plenty of land. Units of government, including the county and municipalities, own 10 percent of the county's land area. According to Wake County, 18 percent -- 100,000 acres -- of land is "off-limits" to development. The county's goal is to restrict 30 percent of all land, or 165,000 acres.

There are several significant problems with limiting the amount of land for development.

* First, less land means a smaller living area for the population. High-density living is a critical part of the "Smart Growth" movement. There may be open space, but individuals don't actually live within the open space. They live among concrete and asphalt. Residents can go visit the open space, assuming the government makes the land accessible to the public.

When more land is available for development, residents can more easily enjoy low-density living. They can enjoy public open space, such as parks, and also have their own private open space such as large backyards with patios and treehouses. Residents live within the open space and aren't separated from it.

* Second, restricting the amount of land for development decreases the possible supply of homes. As simple economics dictates, less supply will mean higher prices for homes. Higher home prices might sound good to a lot of people who already own homes. However, the American dream of homeownership becomes even more difficult for many people.

This doesn't mean all existing homeowners would benefit from rising prices. For example, young families who want to move up to a larger home with more land might find that any increased equity in their own property doesn't make up for the artificially high prices for spacious home sites. As a result, many people, including existing homeowners, might be forced to move out of the county.

Tufts University professor Matthew E. Kahn examined the impact anti-sprawl (low-density) laws on home prices and minority home ownership. He concluded, "Affordability is likely to decrease in the presence of more anti-sprawl legislation. Such rules reduce the supply of new housing, which in turn raises the price of homes.... [S]uch policies will have distributional consequences by limiting progress in minority housing consumption."

* Third, when the government buys the land for open space there are no guarantees that the land will be protected. Increasing land prices certainly will make Wake County less attractive to businesses. At a time when politicians are giving away incentives irresponsibly, government-owned land in the "inventory" would be a prime incentive to attract or retain a business.

If voters want to push government control of property that will promote high-density living and higher home prices, then the bond issue is a good idea. However, if voters want to protect property rights, low-density living and affordable housing, then the bond is a bad idea.

(Daren Bakst, an attorney, is legal and regulatory policy analyst for the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh. The open space bond referendum is one of three separate bond issues on the Wake County ballot.)