Eminent domain vs. Nature Conservancy
Was just browsing through Yahoo! News the other day when I found this story.
Apparently Willacy County of Texas is planning on using eminent domain powers to seize land owned by the Nature Conservancy, probably the most responsible and respected environmental organization in the world, in order to build a road to give the mainland county better access to South Padre Island, famous for its beaches.
I was outraged by the story for several reasons.
First of all, there is no reason to build a road there. The AP story makes it seem as if South Padre Island is completely inaccessible ("To reach the island, visitors must drive 25 miles up the coast from South Padre Island, a bumpy trip that requires a four-wheel drive vehicle and knowledge of tides that can trap a motorist on the return trip."). That is distorted BS. Anyone who has ever been to South Padre Island knows that there is a perfectly serviceable NINE-MILE highway bridge across the Laguna Madre with several lanes in both directions. The problem for Willacy County is that the bridge leads out of Cameron County to the south. But there is a REASON why the bridge is in Cameron County -- because, as any drunken Spring Breaker could tell you, all the resort hotels and the public beaches and the city of South Padre Island itself are at the south end of the island, IN Cameron County. The northern half of the island, the part in Willacy County, is uninhabited -- which is why the Nature Conservancy bought it in the first place. It makes no sense for Willacy County residents to gripe about having to drive through Cameron County to get to South Padre Island, when the places on the island they want to go are IN Cameron County. You have to drive south to get to the public beaches anyway, so just drive south on the friggin coast a ways and take the friggin bridge like everyone else -- it's the exact same distance.
The main reason Willacy County wants this road to be built is so that they can be a new gateway to the island and reap the financial windfall of people stopping to fill up their gas tanks and buying snacks at the Kwik-E-Mart before heading off to somewhere nicer. ('"If you don't have access to the island, then what's the purpose for coming here?" said Willacy County Attorney Juan Angel Guerra.') But their grand master plan is to have a single ferry shuttle cars across Laguna Madre and onto the island, where they can take this proposed road south to the beaches. Given the choice between waiting for the ferry and paying a toll and then driving down the island to their destination, or simply driving across the shiny and FREE bridge directly to their destination, I think the choice of most travelers will be clear. The decision to build the road through Nature Conservancy land won't help the county out that much financially, while permamently destroying valuable and irreplaceable habitat. There must be a better way to attract funds.
Second, the Nature Conservancy's private reserve is home to numerous endangered/threatened species as permanent residents, as well as important points in the migration of several key species, including sea turtles and birds (see link ). While the county has no plans to further develop the area (yet), building a road through it will drastically increase its accessibility. Given that many of the people who go to South Padre Island are kids just looking to have a good time at the beach, you can expect that increasing access through the reserve will result in large amounts of garbage strewn on either side of the roadway and widespread illegal entry onto the currently pristine beaches and other habitat of the reserve, either through ignorance or willful disregard for the law. Increased harassment of wildlife and destruction of nesting and feeding sites on the beaches and inland will drive the animals off and trampling by feet and off-road vehicles could wreak havoc on endangered plant life. The road itself may not destroy the habitat, but the effects of thousands of tourists driving through it probably will.
Finally, the Nature Conservancy (I admit to being a member) is a good example of what a conservation organization can be. The main goal is to protect important areas for wildlife, either through outright purchase of the land or by working with landowners. It has an institutionalized tradition of working within the law in a nonconfrontational manner, as well as pursuing solutions using the free market. It is non-partisan, and in fact several days ago issued a press release touting the environmental commitment of none other than Governor Jeb Bush of Florida. The Conservancy supports ranching, agriculture, logging, mining, hunting, and recreation as long as they are responsible and sustainable. And rather than sitting back and making unreasonable demands, it works actively to find an equitable solution. For instance, the Conservancy pioneered the conservation easement, an arrangement where a landowner retains ownership of the land but is contractually obligated to prevent development. The land goes down in value without development rights, but the Conservancy pays the landowner the difference. In fact, this arrangement is so appealing that landowners who might not otherwise have anything to do with the environmental movement often donate easements to the non-profit Conservancy to get a nice tax write-off for a charitable contribution in the amount of whatever the easement is worth. This innovation is one of the reasons TNC can point not just to empty rhetoric and slogans but to very real accomplishments -- the permanent protection of almost 16 million acres in the US and almost 120 million acres worldwide. This kind of organization is something that should be actively supported. Right now TNC is regarded as the most trusted charitable organization in the country, but exercising the right of eminent domain over Nature Conservancy land will only lead to a chilling effect on donations and support, as donors and landowners will be less willing to hand over land or cash if they see that the government will just take it away any time it wants to build a superfluous road.
It is important to note that the county is exercising its eminent domain for a public project, and so the recent and almost universally hated Supreme Court ruling about eminent domain for private development doesn't apply. But, thanks to the Supreme Court, if Willacy County decides it does want to take the preserve over completely and build hotels on the beaches to provide jobs, there is nothing to stop them except state laws.
I think I have made my opinion clear on the matter, and I would be interested to hear the opinion of others here.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Darth Wong
).
