After turning the idea around in my head some more, I believe that Open Space preservation or whatever government wants to call it, should never be done at anything higher than the municipal level. Even that strikes me as being a bit opposed to the simple morality of the free market, but at least at the municipal level those who enter such a program against their own better judgment will at least receive some benefit since they are located close to the open space. People in a developed end of the county will not, however, receive a benefit from preserving open space in another part of the county.
So, in summary:
Spending taxpayers money to preserve open space is wrong for two reasons:
1. It takes money away from people against their will for something they do not support and that is not an essential function of government.
2. It makes government a player in the market for real estate (and probably the largest at that) albeit it in a more passive role than, for example, a developer.
3. It,like all government programs, is open to abuse and bad decision making based on things other than market forces; in fact, there really isn't any criteria for determining what should be preserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment