Taylor Jessup Land Use Regulations 8/27/13 Property Rights Property Rights, written by Harvey M.

Jacobs and Kurt Paulsen has made no significant change towards my feelings of what property is and how property should be regulated. There seem to be two major arguments presented in the paper: one, that planning has only tried to aid in helping those secure and manage their own property rights, and the other, that planning has tried to remove and sabotage those rights completely. I can see both arguments, each have a valid point, but I feel that modern property rights today would not exist at all without the aid of planning. Plannings purpose today is to enforce the notion that every property owner has rights and that there must be a balance of power and freedom involved in planning in order to keep citizens happy. As John Locke discussed in Of Property, man has been given the right to personal ownership just in existing as a human being. According to Locke, God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah, and his sons, it is very clear, that God, as king David says, has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common. This expresses the idea that everyone has an equal right to land and that it must be shared. Locke also notes, yet being given for the use of men, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man. I agree with the idea that in order for property to be of any advantage to a particular man that it must in turn be of use to others. An example of this would be the idea that a farmer cannot enjoy the full wealth of his property unless others are able to buy his crops and enjoy the products of his property along

with him. When others buy the crop from the farmer, this allows the farmer to continue to use his property for his own value. It seems to be a cyclical process and it presents the idea that both sides must be in balance in order to remain effective. There is a similar argument in Property Rights, where property has a cultural significance attached to it, and that if your property rights are infringed upon then your personal rights are also being disregarded. Property Rights highlights the contentious aspects of planning, specifically due to the distrust the public has over their own rights being controlled or manipulated. If private property is a persons own property to do with what they wish, why should the government have any kind of involvement? The answer, which I feel the article doesnt seem to discuss at length, is for the greater good of mankind. It relates back to Lockes idea that everyone must share the same benefits of property equally, and that if they are not shared equally there will be no benefit for anyone. Property Rights quotes Alfred Bettman when he says, Zoning promotes those beneficial effects upon health and morals which come from living in orderly and decent surroundings the man who seeks to place the home for his children in an orderly neighborhood, with some open space and light and fresh air and quiet is motivated by the assumption that his children are likely to grow mentally, physically, and morally more healthful in such a neighborhood than in a disorderly, noisy, slovenly, blighted, and slum-like district. Planning ensures that everyone is entitled to these rights and that they must abide by any rules necessary (without becoming a taking) to ensure the happiness and well-being of others who are also entitled to their rights. If planning did not exist to maintain and enforce these rights, Im not sure property could exist as Locke pictured with everyone appeased with their rights. That being said, I do agree that there is a fine line between planning and over-regulation of property. While planning today is necessary for everyone to get along and play fair, a

property owners rights should not be widdled away until there is nothing left. I agree with the idea we discussed in class about the segmented theory of property. Government can have some enforcement and regulation but only to a certain point. Property is no longer property when all of your rights have been stripped away. Thats why there have been several regulations and laws enacted to make sure this doesnt occur; that the government cannot simply take your rights away without some sort of just compensation in return or else it will be considered a taking. Although this is still an issue today, it was more of a focal point of planning in the past as the article discusses: We argue that planning was promoted to protect upper and middle class property right interests, often against those of the working classes, racial minorities, or immigrants. Planning was another discriminatory action against these people, used to enforce dominant power over them and to maneuver them as pawns in the economically, city driven way of life. This example is why people continue to hold grudges and misconceptions about the planning industry. Overall, I think planning, especially when it comes to property rights, is a Catch-22. A planner must recognize and protect the rights and freedoms given to man while also enforcing the rules and regulations that keep the peace and make things fair for everyone. It is a balancing act that requires the knowledge of what property means and the history behind property in order for planners and property owners even, to efficiently make decisions. As the article states, We should not ignore property rights in the 21st century, but should embrace this theme to help shape public discussion and provide a renewed basis for the claim that planning helps communities manage private property in the public interest. I think knowledge of the value and rights behind property and ownership can help to improve the overall attitude about planners.