Brea Creates Open Space By Down-Zoning Private Property
“There is no such thing as a free lunch” is a well-worn cliché. The political leaders of Brea apparently don’t agree. Brea’s City Council wants to enhance and preserve the city’s open space. In the abstract, that is a laudable goal. The problem is that much of the existing open space is in the hands of private property owners who would like to develop their property. Of course, if the community values open space, it can acquire property for open space. In that way, the community as a whole would bear the burden of preserving open space. The problem is that the community is not willing to pay for it. Well, more accurately, the City Council has decided, why even ask the community to pay when it can impose the burden on a few unlucky property owners?
Meet unlucky property owner Leo Hayashi. He is one of three landowners who bought 700 acres in Carbon Canyon in the 1970s and now has 300 acres that he wants to develop. According to the April, 2006 edition of the Orange County Register online, the city's general plan allowed the development of 1,685 housing units in the area, down 30 percent after it had downsized the number of properties in 2001. Brea officials now want to allow only a total of 103 houses on Hayashi’s 300 acres of land. The Register also reports that another small group of property owners would be particularly hard hit by the City’s plans, losing 95 percent of the development potential of their property. Those owners would be allowed to build a total of 29 houses on 814 acres.
Amazingly, the city's general plan sets out the City’s strategy: "Without financial resources to purchase the properties worthy of permanent open-space status, the city must look to creative approaches." Apparently, “creative approaches” is another way of saying “take it for free” in government speak. If the City cannot justify spending public funds for open space, it should not put that burden on 3 or 4 individual property owners. The politics are easy to understand. The City Council can satisfy a group of residents clamoring for open space without spending any tax money. The City even avoids paying for any upkeep for its open space because the property owner will be obligated to maintain the property. It is truly a free lunch! Let’s hope the courts send the City Council the bill.
Mark,
Congratulations on your blog- a real web newsletter. These summaries are excellent and important to private property rights! Once again, I can see what you are accomplishing! I like the little punchlines at the end here and there.
I'll have a link made from our web site to the blog.
Carol W. LaGrasse
President
Property Rights Foundation of America