Public sector regulation of land development and conservation in California

Conservationism vs. Development

Land is a serious subject for the private and public sectors, both of which vie against one another for its control. All over the states, partisans exist who are either pro-conservationism or pro-development. Typically these partisans can be divided into two camps: the pro-business camp which supports development and the conservationists/environmentalists who resist development and promote land preservation. There is no easy resolution for the two disagreeing sides on how to approach the issue; either the land must be protected or it must be developed. However, a solution is possible -- and in many cases it is not just one solution but a number of solutions that work together to effect a compromise. In short, it is up to the public sector to establish rules and regulations stating exactly where the private and public sectors start and stop regarding land usage.

Santos, Watt and Pinceti (2014) show that land is being lost in California to development precisely because the public sector has been enlisted by special interest groups who stand to profit from a governmental policy that favors land development. Meanwhile, the private sector that supports conservation is disregarded and unheard. Preservation is abandoned for the benefit of a few. Ye and Wu (2014) argue that development does not benefit just a few, however, as it fuels economies and growth within states and nations -- and they point to China as an example of how land development has helped boost the country's GDP. The reality is, however, that this is a vastly over-inflated number and China has essentially developed "ghost towns" -- paid for by the public sector with no one to live in them (Yu, 2014, p. 33). The land has been ruined, aka "developed" for housing and business projects that remain hollow testaments to the exploitative nature of developers leeching off the coffers of the government.

Background and Legislative History

With the rise of Industrialization in the 19th century, land conservationism began to gain support in the years that followed. National State Parks like Yellowstone were established in order to preserve the natural beauty and wildlife of the region. In states like California, where urbanization has taken place and the environment has had to be adapted in order to meet the demands and needs of the people, the issue of development vs. conservationism is felt more keenly than in Midwestern regions were fewer people are affected by the issue. Throughout the 20th century, the issue of what to do with the land in populated areas has manifested itself in a number of ways, through for example the building of dams in order to divert water from one region to another (notably memorialized in popular culture in the Academy-Award nominated film Chinatown).

In 1965, the California Land Conservation Act was passed in order to give local governments the ability to subsidize local landowners dedicated to agricultural production. This was followed by the Open Space Subvention Act of 1971. And in 2009, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act included 170 bills that dedicated regions throughout the United States to land conservation (Eilperrin, 2009) in order to attempt to satisfy the public demand for preservation. The Omnibus Act also established the National Landscape Conservation System, tasked with diligently overseeing and preserving areas under the Bureau of Land Management (Eilperrin, 2009).

By and large these measures have been offset by the efforts of big business to promote development through lobbies and campaign funding. These methods are relative shortcuts in comparison to the time and work it takes to produce a piece of legislation and see it put in motion. Thus the legislative history of the issue of development vs. conservationism in the U.S. only tells half the story. The other half can be seen in the rise of urbanization and its effects on the environment.

Policy Alternatives (from Units 3, 4, and 9)

Policy alternatives include a number of options. First, the public sector could increase its land holdings by purchasing and preserving land as a means of regulating business interests that might otherwise set out to develop and pollute the environment. A second option is to give subsidies to developers to not develop land, just as agricultural farmers are given subsidies to not farm so as to help maintain a proper balance of supply and demand. A third option is related to the maintaining of urban areas that are preserved as parks: the maintenance of these areas could be outsourced to private institutions, which would free up resources for the public government, allow small businesses to not be drained by efforts of the public sector to recoup losses (such as excessive metering fees), and promote activity in the pro-business sector as well.

Properties could also be sold to non-profit organizations and thereby maintained by them, though this model relies on non-private organizations and is not based on returns. By adopting a full privatization model, competition among the pro-business private sector is encouraged and the principal of efficiency can be adopted in order to ensure a balanced and fair approach to both private and public interests.

Deliberating Problem

By taking a stance in favor of conservationism, the public sector could do a great deal in terms of protecting the environment and effecting a viable compromise for the two sides of this problem. On the one hand, pro-business interests want to use the land to meet the needs of the population. On the other hand, pro-conservationists want to use the land to preserve the environment and save the population from pollution. Both have a desire to serve. While the pro-business side obviously stands to profit from development as well, it is helpful to understand that this side can also be part of the effort to conserve by working with the public sector as private entities to maintain lands and parks dedicated to preservation. At the same time, if they do not wish to be part of this solution, there is the idea that subsidies can be offered to developers to not develop, just as farmers are subsidized to not farm. This process may be controversial to some, but it is a solution that has roots in American society and history and should be considered as a viable option. The nation's environment is no less important than the nation's economy: both deal with the nation's health.

Thus deciding what to do about this problem comes down to whether the public sector wants to continue to promote profits without responsibility to the planet and the populace or if it wants to return to its Progressive roots and show the kind of care and concern it did for the environment at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries. This sort of return to positive, systematic and socially responsible oversight by the public sector could do a great deal to motivate other nations around the world to do the same. Americans often set the bar and serve as the example for others because it is a nation that leads the world. Therefore while this problem may seem simple on its head, it does in fact have global repercussions. Care should be taken to consider the impact that a solution to the problem of the land issue will have on the rest of the world. The responsible course, therefore, is to put people before profits, to understand the necessity of maintaining a proper ecological and environmental balance in proportion to the need for developers to profit. The sound course of action is for the public sector to purchase land so as to regulate the advance of the pro-business entities and to offer subsidies as an alternative.