Bidding on grazing rights
WLockeretz@infonet.tufts.edu
Sat, 28 Oct 95 7:35:19 EDT
The recent discussion of whether environmental groups should bid for grazing
rights to keep cows off certain land--a tactic that some people have opposed
on the grounds that it deprives some people in the area of their livelihood --
is an ironic twist on an old issue. For years, farmland preservation groups
had to deal with the "highest and best use" doctrine, under which farmland was
taxed at the value it would have for development, even though it was still
being farmed. ("Highest and best" in this context means "bringing in the most
revenue.") This placed strong pressure on farmers to sell out, because of the
high taxes they faced. Preservationists, up against the "highest and best"
doctrine, had to argue "Yes, but ... " (Eventually the counterarguments
prevailed, and "highest and best" has been widely replaced by assessment of
farmland according to its value agricultural value.)
In the current case, however, environmental preservation seems to have won
out on economic grounds. After all, "highest and best use" just means "Who
will pay the most?" The whole idea of a bidding system is to find out. Well,
now we know. I don't believe that the party with the deepest pockets
necessarily should have the right to decide how land is used, but as long as
it's being done that way (i.e., as long as grazing rights are put out to bid)
let's do it that way. This time the "highest and best" use -- as judged by
willingness to pay -- is preservation; I find it ironic that those who want
to use the land for economic activity instead of protecting it as a public
good are now arguing against a purely economic basis for allocating land, and
saying "Yes, but ... "
Interesting, isn't it?
William Lockeretz
Tufts University