Sorry, this is the sixth or seventh diary on this topic, but it offers a very different opinion than the others.
The recent Supreme Court decision is scary in one sense, as has been discussed. Speaking as a developer consultant, however, it's the development industry that has lost, and it lost big time.
I'll tell you how below.
Over the past 30 years in Florida, developers have managed to cover most of the Sunshine State in concrete. Okay, that's overstated but only slightly. In truth, developers have chipped away at what was once one of the most progressive growth management programs in the U.S. and rendered it almost inconsequential.
This latest "taking" ruling sets the land development industry back about 25 years in Florida (and most other states that still have environmentally sensitive tracts worth preserving).
Yes, the ruling tells municipalities that they can condemn and "take" private property, then convey it to private developers, if the end result is deemed beneficial to the community in "due process." It also says the land owner must be compensated fairly. And yes, for personal reasons and on general principle, I am opposed to the ruling, but it's not the end of the world.
Land developers -- every one that I know of -- are way more opposed to it than I am. Those of you who fees squeamish standing on the same side of this issue as Scalia and Thomas will feel even worse when you realize that your fellow protestors include every major U.S. home builder, every major U.S. real estate developer and every Realtor and broker in the country (save the 125 or so nationwide who still have a conscience -- and all of them probably read dKos too).
People I know own 1,500 acres of wilderness along a pristine river and want to turn it into a gated golf course community at a profit of about $150 million. The land is habitat for black bears (and dozens of other species) and plays a key role in linking three major black bear refuge areas (that total 30,000 acres) together. Right now, the law says no more than one home per five acres, which means max $10 million in profits, a substantially smaller market to sell to and a significantly riskier venture. (P.S., 1:5 is also way more environmentally degrading, with septic tanks and drain fields, etc., this issue has no clear winners anywhere).
For years, developers have threatened court cases, they have hired million dollar lawyers to make their threats known and they have made huge contributions to Republican Party candidates up and down the state to get their way. They have almost gotten it -- a review of the Future Land Use (FLU) policy is imminent and everyone I know was pretty sure they would prevail in two or three years.
Now it looks as if they are screwed. Their best bet now will be to sell the land to the state as conservation lands. Their profit (they are speculators, pure and simple) will just about cover their legal costs (ain't that always the way it works?).
The story is the same all across the country. This ruling gives a lot more power to people who want to preserve historical buildings and environmentally sensitive lands alike. Yes, there's plenty of room for abuse, but that's what "due process" and local politics have always been about. This decision doesn't change that (no doubt a future decision will, I'm a pessimist).
But my point here is that as scary as this decision might seem at first, it is a huge victory for local groups who are trying to inject some sense into local land use and growth management issues. As badly as I feel about it, had the court ruled otherwise, the land development industry in Florida would finish paving over the state by about 2030.
And while the state that has given us Terry Schiavo, Porter Goss, Mohammed Atta's flight lessons, Katherine Harris, illegal pesticide testing on poor kids, Elian Gonzales and Jeb Bush might deserve to be covered over in concrete, there are a lot of bears, raccoons, otters, manatees, blue herons and armadillos (my personal favorite) who are worth saving.