Strategic Retreat? From Property Ownership?

Bill 5128, AN ACT CONCERNING CERTAIN REVISIONS TO THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT STATUTES, currently under consideration by the Environment Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly, introduces the policy of “strategic retreat of property ownership.” It is important to examine the “strategic retreat” concept. It is nothing less than a challenge to private property ownership and promotes a concept that changes the relationship between governments and individuals who are property owners, while changing the valuations of property that can be taken by the government. Refer to a paper funded by the Educational Foundation of America (EFA) and authored by Andrew Coburn, Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC. The paper is titled, “Reforming State-Level Coastal Management and Development Policies: Strategic Retreat as an Innovative, Proactive and Equitable Coastal Environmental Management Strategy.” The author describes the “Problem of Coastal Development” and proposes a number of solutions to the perceived problem caused by the Constitution, particularly the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. Refer to the paper’s section, “The Concept of Regulatory Givings.” In this section the author describes as a problem with the U.S.Constitution, specifically, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. According to the author, “this clause enables property owners to receive compensation when an entire estate is taken by a government agency and title transfers to the government; when property is physically invaded by government order, either permanently or temporarily; when regulation for other than health or safety reasons takes all or nearly all of the value of a property and when government attaches unreasonable or disproportionate permit conditions on use.” Coburn goes on to describe the converse concept of “givings.” “Givings” are government actions or programs such as “flood insurance, construction of flood control measures and liberal disaster relief.” According to the author, these “givings” have magnified the market value of coastal real estate by reducing or allocating risks. The author’s perceived problem is as follows: Market assessed values have been inflated by government policies. Therefore, the valuation method to be considered in strategic retreat would be as follows: Instead of market value, the properties’ value would be derived by its contributions to government revenue streams. In addition, let’s subtract from that market value any amounts that have been paid in the past by any governmental agency that were incurred to mitigate or prevent damages. Let’s just forget about that market value stuff. For that matter, let’s just forget about the value of the property to the owner, or the private market. It’s all about the value accruing to the government. Coburn goes on to suggest (my understanding) that the solution to the government’s inability to afford to compensate property owners at fair market value is to devalue the property by claiming that the market value is only as high as it is because of past government policy “mistakes.” So, he writes: “Governments can counteract the high cost of coastal property acquisition programs by making past government subsidies subject to recapture as a “credit” to be offset against the cost to purchase or condemn redevelopment rights or other interest in a property.” He concludes:”Once economic barriers, real and perceived, can be successfully overcome, strategic coastal retreat will provide coastal communities, counties, property owners and states with a sustainable and equitable strategy for effectively managing development and redevelopment along dynamic shorelines.” The effort to foster “strategic retreat of property ownership” seems to be a major effort to take land away from private owners at reduced prices, as well as an effort to circumvent the United States Constitution and particularly the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. If the strategic retreat concept can be applied to coastal property, why would it not be applicable to all property? The proponents of these efforts seem to think that people and property exist for the state, not the other way around! Here is a link to the original paper: http://www.wcu.edu/WebFiles/PDFs/Strategic_Retreat.pdf Here is a link to Education Foundation of America: http://www.efaw.org/index.html Here is a link to Bill 5128: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/TOB/H/2012HB-05128-R00-HB.html