Private Property and Theft by Desire

Last week Alison and I took the children for a little vacation at their Grandparents’ vacation home in Rock Hall, a small community on the eastern shore of Maryland. My Mother, “Gran”, had graciously provided a copy of the local paper for us to enjoy with coffee in the morning. It was fun to read about the goings on in a different place. One article in particular caught my attention and in light of having recently read Ayn Rand’s, “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” I began to muse…

It seems that the foolhardy folk of Chestertown, Maryland recently passed revisions to their Tree Ordinance. The new guidelines would, “require a permit for the cutting of large, healthy trees on private property.” Mayor Margo Bailey is quoted by the Kent County News as saying, “You need to consider their other uses beyond decorating your property.”

Alice McNow, a member of the planning commission said that she, “would be heart-broken if her neighbor cut down a large tree that shaded her house.” Another member of the committee, James Tobriner, said that the ordinance did not apply to pruning and trimming to maintain a healthy tree, indeed that was not only permitted but encouraged!

So, the private property owner is encouraged to spend his capital to provide an unearned benefit to others simply because they want it. This is a scandalous assault on private property, capitalism, and most importantly on the founding principles of this country.

Our nation is the unique experiment in human history where Capitalism was first attempted as an organizing principle for a society. This government of the people determined that our society would be organized and its production distributed to the producers, the innovators, the organizers, in short, the doers, not the consumers.

Chestertown’s ridiculous ordinance turns that concept on its head and allocates unearned benefits to those that want something, not those that produce or maintain the production of the benefit. This form of majority rule is the empty husk of freedom. It is the final stage of a collapsing society attempting self-rule.

You may be wondering how we get from a silly ordinance to the collapse of a free society, but sadly the walk is not long and I hope to illuminate the path a bit so that we can turn aside. Let us consider the consequences of the ordinance.

The stated goal of the ordinance is to maintain and increase the amount of the tree canopy in the town. I maintain that the real political goal is to further accumulate to local bureaucrats power to which they have no legitimate claim, but let’s take the official’s at their word.

If the goal is to maintain and increase the amount of tree canopy you would expect the town to enact a policy which was likely to lead to the desired outcome. Consider instead the likely outcomes of this ordinance.

Imagine yourself a property owner with a tree now at 35’ in height (the ordinance currently applies to trees over 45’ feet). Each year you find yourself paying some fee that is likely to grow over time for the pruning of the tree to keep it from growing over property lines, into electrical lines, and over useful land for gardens, skylights, etc. You now have a choice. You can continue to let your tree grow and lose the right to decide or you can exercise your right now, to cut the tree, and replant a smaller growing tree, perhaps a dogwood or a dwarf.

Even if you think it unlikely that most property owners would choose to cull a healthy tree approaching the ordinance minimum, consider the effect on your property value were you to allow the tree to continue to grow. Potential buyers of your property would see the over 45’ tree as an impediment to putting on an addition, creating an outdoor living space, adding a pool, creating a large cutting or vegetable garden, etc. You have reduced future owners’ options, and therefore your property value.

Perhaps instead you are considering the planting of a new tree for the purposes of shade or aesthetics. Would you plant a tree that would become a financial burden and property restriction, or would you plant a tree that avoided the ordinance?

I ask you then, what kind of tree canopy can we expect in Chestertown in just 30 years? Would you expect most new trees to be over, or under, 45 feet?

So, the town fails to reach the stated goal of maintaining and extending its tree canopy.

Now, let us ask why. When you allow the majority to take what it wants by government fiat (force), you remove the incentive for production of the desired good. If you leave private the costs but make public the benefit, the producers stop producing.

Chestertown will learn the consequences of its misguided policy soon enough. It will be a good lesson for the backward thinking “citizens”. Sadly, it is not a lesson they needed to learn by experience, for it has already been taught to us by history. Communist Russia is the easy example but there are many others.

How could Chestertown achieve the intended result? They could offer a stipend to any property owner with at least one healthy tree over 45 feet in height. If you wish to enjoy the benefit, provide incentives for its production.

If the small-minded choices of some backwater town seem too insignificant to warrant mention I ask you to reflect on the lesson as it pertains to current national debates.

This slow transformation of our society from one based on production to one based on consumption is corruption our very nature. It is undermining our long-term growth and success. We must go back and consider what has facilitated our remarkable achievements and turn aside from the modern day socialists currently calling themselves Democrats and Republicans.

We have fallen victim to the trap of consumption, the belief that wanting something badly enough entitles us to it. Wanting something does not entitle you to it. Only the producer has a moral claim to the produced.