Friday, May 16, 2008
Private Property Rights - What Philosophy Do You Follow?
Property Rights
by Armen A. Alchian
One of the most fundamental requirements of a capitalist economic system—and one of the most misunderstood concepts—is a strong system of property rights. For decades social critics in the United States and throughout the Western world have complained that "property" rights too often take precedence over "human" rights, with the result that people are treated unequally and have unequal opportunities. Inequality exists in any society. But the purported conflict between property rights and human rights is a mirage—property rights are human rights.
The definition, allocation, and protection of property rights is one of the most complex and difficult set of issues that any society has to resolve, but it is one that must be resolved in some fashion. For the most part social critics of "property" rights do not want to abolish those rights. Rather, they want to transfer them from private ownership to government ownership. Some transfers to public ownership (or control, which is similar) make an economy more effective. Others make it less effective. The worst outcome by far occurs when property rights really are abolished (see The Tragedy of the Commons).
A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals. Society approves the uses selected by the holder of the property right with governmental administered force and with social ostracism. If the resource is owned by the government, the agent who determines its use has to operate under a set of rules determined, in the United States, by Congress or by executive agencies it has charged with that role.
Private property rights have two other attributes in addition to determining the use of a resource. One is the exclusive right to the services of the resource. Thus, for example, the owner of an apartment with complete property rights to the apartment has the right to determine whether to rent it out and, if so, which tenant to rent to; to live in it himself; or to use it in any other peaceful way. That is the right to determine the use. If the owner rents out the apartment, he also has the right to all the rental income from the property. That is the right to the services of the resources (the rent).
Finally, a private property right includes the right to delegate, rent, or sell any portion of the rights by exchange or gift at whatever price the owner determines (provided someone is willing to pay that price). If I am not allowed to buy some rights from you and you therefore are not allowed to sell rights to me, private property rights are reduced. Thus, the three basic elements of private property are (1) exclusivity of rights to the choice of use of a resource, (2) exclusivity of rights to the services of a resource, and (3) rights to exchange the resource at mutually agreeable terms.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Hammond/Warrenton Street Scapes 1962 - What's Strikingly Obvious In These Photos?
Hammond Buildings 1962
Warrenton Street Scape 1962?
Monday, May 12, 2008
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Northwest Property Rights Coalition Calls For FERC Pipeline Siting Reforms!
May 12, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact: Marc Auerbach, 503.755.2415, marc@nwprc.org
Northwest Property Rights Coalition Calls for Reforms in Six Areas of FERC Pipeline Siting Process
(Molalla, OR)Today the Northwest Property Rights Coalition (NWPRC) released a plan for reform of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) process for siting interstate, natural gas pipelines (www.nwprc.org/reform). The reforms grow out of direct landowner experience in Washington and Oregon where 3 liquefied natural gas plants and four pipelines are proposed. “The system as set up now is lopsided, seriously flawed, and in dire need of reform,” says Paul Sansone of Sansone & Associates, an affected landowner in Gales Creek, Oregon. The report addresses these flaws with dozens of specific reforms that fall into six broad categories:
1. Makes the initial “baseline route” a corridor; not a line.
2. Asks FERC to create more written policies, procedures and criteria for route changes, right-of-way agreements, etc.
3. Requires compensation for landowners during the “limbo period.”
4. Requires eminent domain not be granted as a matter of course, but only if mandatory negotiations and arbitration fail.
5. Engages a third party to monitor landowner satisfaction and pipeline company performance.
6. Change FERC’s approach to licensing by applying open market principles before the application phase instead of during or after the approval process.
The reforms seek to cure obvious discrepancies between the theory of pipeline siting as seen by FERC in Washington, D.C. and the reality on the ground. For example, FERC knows that the pipeline route will vary from the initially proposed route, yet the notification and initial maps only reflect a specific route. In fact NWPRC has documented that even FERC’s “final” route is subject to change. Reform number one makes the initial “baseline route” a corridor; not a line.
From a FERC policy report, “FERC staff has been asked to offer assistance early in the process to support all stakeholders. Earlier and more productive involvement will lead to better project designs and less contentious applications to FERC and other agencies.” In reality “FERC’s” policies and procedures for dealing with landowner concerns seem ad hoc and arbitrary,” states Susan Hansen, NWPRC board member from Molalla, Oregon. Reform number two addresses several ways the process can be made more fair and useful.
“It has already been eight months since the Palomar and Oregon LNG pipelines were proposed, and it could be several years before the regulatory process is complete. During that time, our small business – our farm – is at a serious competitive disadvantage, since we are dealing with terrible uncertainty. We don’t know whether to go ahead and invest in our planned improvements now, or wait until we are sure our land won’t be torn up to accommodate this fossil fuel pipeline,” reports Anne Berblinger, Gales Creek, Oregon. NWPRC calls for compensation for landowners for the very real impacts of living for an indeterminate time in the crosshairs of a pipeline. We refer to this time as the limbo period.
FERC has been granted the awesome authority to grant eminent domain power to private companies, yet it leaves landowners to battle for their rights in state condemnation court; if the claim exceeds a paltry $3,000, then it moves to federal court. “The deck is absurdly stacked against the small private landowner of limited resources, in favor of corporations with their vast resources and expertise,” notes Brent Foster, Executive Director Columbia Riverkeeper. NWPRC seeks reforms, such as an arbitration option, to help level the playing field.
Who monitors landowner satisfaction with FERC? FERC asks the pipeline companies. We think this should change. Gayle Kiser, an NWPRC board member, notes, “We here in Washington State are protected by the Washington Utilities and Transportations Commission, who were granted the authority to oversee pipeline installation following the 1999 disaster in Bellingham involving the Olympic pipeline. Such protection should be available to all citizens of the United States. We shouldn't have to rely on a private contractor to hold the installer to the letter of the law.”
FERC chairman Kelliher takes pride in allowing the free market to determine which projects sink or swim. “Kelliher’s so called ‘market’ is one composed on enslaved properties, forcibly conscripted from landowners,” says Marc Auerbach, Chair NWPRC. “We call on FERC to move to an auction system to apply market forces up front to limit the damage caused by FERC’s current irresponsible approach.”
Although packed with reforms, the report is a concise 8 pages and may be found at www.nwprc.org/reform. NWPRC plans to work with congressional representatives to craft implementing legislation.
The Northwest Property Rights Coalition (NWPRC) was formed by landowners in 2007 in response to proposals for three LNG terminals and four pipelines in the northwest.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact: Marc Auerbach, 503.755.2415, marc@nwprc.org
Northwest Property Rights Coalition Calls for Reforms in Six Areas of FERC Pipeline Siting Process
(Molalla, OR)Today the Northwest Property Rights Coalition (NWPRC) released a plan for reform of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) process for siting interstate, natural gas pipelines (www.nwprc.org/reform). The reforms grow out of direct landowner experience in Washington and Oregon where 3 liquefied natural gas plants and four pipelines are proposed. “The system as set up now is lopsided, seriously flawed, and in dire need of reform,” says Paul Sansone of Sansone & Associates, an affected landowner in Gales Creek, Oregon. The report addresses these flaws with dozens of specific reforms that fall into six broad categories:
1. Makes the initial “baseline route” a corridor; not a line.
2. Asks FERC to create more written policies, procedures and criteria for route changes, right-of-way agreements, etc.
3. Requires compensation for landowners during the “limbo period.”
4. Requires eminent domain not be granted as a matter of course, but only if mandatory negotiations and arbitration fail.
5. Engages a third party to monitor landowner satisfaction and pipeline company performance.
6. Change FERC’s approach to licensing by applying open market principles before the application phase instead of during or after the approval process.
The reforms seek to cure obvious discrepancies between the theory of pipeline siting as seen by FERC in Washington, D.C. and the reality on the ground. For example, FERC knows that the pipeline route will vary from the initially proposed route, yet the notification and initial maps only reflect a specific route. In fact NWPRC has documented that even FERC’s “final” route is subject to change. Reform number one makes the initial “baseline route” a corridor; not a line.
From a FERC policy report, “FERC staff has been asked to offer assistance early in the process to support all stakeholders. Earlier and more productive involvement will lead to better project designs and less contentious applications to FERC and other agencies.” In reality “FERC’s” policies and procedures for dealing with landowner concerns seem ad hoc and arbitrary,” states Susan Hansen, NWPRC board member from Molalla, Oregon. Reform number two addresses several ways the process can be made more fair and useful.
“It has already been eight months since the Palomar and Oregon LNG pipelines were proposed, and it could be several years before the regulatory process is complete. During that time, our small business – our farm – is at a serious competitive disadvantage, since we are dealing with terrible uncertainty. We don’t know whether to go ahead and invest in our planned improvements now, or wait until we are sure our land won’t be torn up to accommodate this fossil fuel pipeline,” reports Anne Berblinger, Gales Creek, Oregon. NWPRC calls for compensation for landowners for the very real impacts of living for an indeterminate time in the crosshairs of a pipeline. We refer to this time as the limbo period.
FERC has been granted the awesome authority to grant eminent domain power to private companies, yet it leaves landowners to battle for their rights in state condemnation court; if the claim exceeds a paltry $3,000, then it moves to federal court. “The deck is absurdly stacked against the small private landowner of limited resources, in favor of corporations with their vast resources and expertise,” notes Brent Foster, Executive Director Columbia Riverkeeper. NWPRC seeks reforms, such as an arbitration option, to help level the playing field.
Who monitors landowner satisfaction with FERC? FERC asks the pipeline companies. We think this should change. Gayle Kiser, an NWPRC board member, notes, “We here in Washington State are protected by the Washington Utilities and Transportations Commission, who were granted the authority to oversee pipeline installation following the 1999 disaster in Bellingham involving the Olympic pipeline. Such protection should be available to all citizens of the United States. We shouldn't have to rely on a private contractor to hold the installer to the letter of the law.”
FERC chairman Kelliher takes pride in allowing the free market to determine which projects sink or swim. “Kelliher’s so called ‘market’ is one composed on enslaved properties, forcibly conscripted from landowners,” says Marc Auerbach, Chair NWPRC. “We call on FERC to move to an auction system to apply market forces up front to limit the damage caused by FERC’s current irresponsible approach.”
Although packed with reforms, the report is a concise 8 pages and may be found at www.nwprc.org/reform. NWPRC plans to work with congressional representatives to craft implementing legislation.
The Northwest Property Rights Coalition (NWPRC) was formed by landowners in 2007 in response to proposals for three LNG terminals and four pipelines in the northwest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)