The case of Downing/Salt Pond Partners v. State of Rhode Island, 2010 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 29644, has made it into the New York Times; see Elizabeth Abbott, N.Y. Times. April 7, 2010, at p. B6.
It concerns a developer who owns 25 acres of unimproved land, on which the state issued a permit in 1992. The owner has already built a shopping plaza and and 26 single-family homes on his original ownership of 100 acres. But in 2007 the State Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission asked that the permit be revoked, because more recently, when he tried to build 53 single-family homes on the remaining land, they discovered the remnants of an old Indian village which the Commission wants to preserve.
That sounds commendable. We are all for historical preservation, except what we don’t understand is why private owners of historically significant land can be just conscripted as keepers of a historical site at their expense. You’ll note that nobody has offered to reduce (or eliminate) property taxes on that land that the state wants to preserve. What these something-for-nothing artists want is for the owner to pay ad valorem taxes based on the property’s highest and best use, and bear all other burdens and responsibilities of property ownership, while at the same time they deny him the right to put it to any use.
Ah, but the excuse is that, as the Times puts it, “the state has been unable to find the money with which to compensate [the owner of that land].” Quoth the executive director of the historical commission, “There is no fund to acquire sites like this.” That may be true. We ourselves have noted with dismay that we haven’t been able to “find the money” with which to buy a Ferrari or some other spiffy piece of automotive chick bait, but it never occurred to us to stroll down to the friendly local Ferrari dealer and demand that he hand over the keys to that nice, red roadster that goes “Vrooom!”
One other interesting thing about that case. The caption says Downing/etc. v. State of Rhode Island. Haven’t these folks heard about the 11th Amendment?
And so it goes.