Government, which should be the protector of property rights, has, in the past few years, become one of it’s worst violators.

Take for example: You put together a Japanese rock garden in your back yard. You have it there for a number of years until one day, without warning, you are served a writ from a government agency that tells you to remove the garden, or face having to pay a stiff fine.

Another example would be that you wish to build a carport for your house. You have the plans and can do most of the work yourself, but come to find that, in order to build the carport, you have to file an application. After having done so, you must then have a hearing with a state commissioner. This takes years. Finally, you’re informed that, in order to be granted the approval to build the carport, you have to give the state a piece of your land.

These examples may seem ridiculous and more akin to an oppressive, Orwellian kind of government but, sad to say, these incidents occur daily for property owners nationwide.

For instance, take the California Coastal Commission. This state agency has routinely trampled on coastal owner’s property rights. Citizens of the state who reside within five miles inland of California’s 1100 miles of coastline are subjected to the Costal Commission’s power to approve or deny improvements involving any solid structure on their property. This means that property owners must seek approval for anything from adding a room to their home, planting trees, adding a fence, or laying down a garden walkway.

The California Coastal Commission has a mandate which is to “preserve, protect . . . and restore the resources of the coastal zone for the enjoyment of the current and succeeding generations.” This agency operates on the premise that nearly 1 million acres under its jurisdiction are a “priceless natural heritage of all the people.” It completely disregards the fact that the “priceless heritage” of California’s coastline is abutted by private homes and businesses whose owners have paid dearly for their property.

No group of people have the right to demand that landowners sacrifice their property for the interests, either real or alleged, of non-owners. If a citizen owns property, he has the right to control it, even if it conflicts with the tastes or priorities of non-owners.

An individual has the right to acquire property and, once the property is acquired, to use it without interference from others and that is on the condition that a property owner does not interfere with the rights of his neighbors to do likewise. In short, life and property belong to you, not to others.

The California Coastal Commission and agencies like it stand the purpose of government on its head. The Declaration of Independence states that it is only “to secure these rights,” that “governments are instituted among men.” A legitimate governmental agency would not violate property rights by dictating to an owner as to how he must use his property. Rather, it would do everything that it could to protect the owner in his right to develop his property as he sees fit.

When the principle that the government can deprive some individuals of their right to property is accepted, there isn’t any basis to reject the usurpation of private property. If a home owner on California’s coast can be ordered to stop building a shower, a shed, a walkway, or to refrain from placing chairs and a table in his backyard, what would prevent the state from gutting the right to property anywhere in the U.S.?

Indeed, nationwide, there are escalating attacks on homeowners’ property rights. In Lake Tahoe, the most minute details of lakeshore homes, including paint color, are regulated by a multi-state planning board. In Washington, D.C., a landlord cannot sell his own property without his tenant’s permission. Around the San Francisco area, certain homes designated as “affordable” can be sold for only at a government-controlled price. In Portland, Oregon, there are wide swaths of the city where no one can build a single-family home on his own land, even though it’s adjacent to other suburban homes. In hundreds of U.S. cities, various laws that have established “historical districts,” “landmarks,” or “improvement zones” prevent owners from removing trees, erecting fences, adding rooms, or even changing rain gutters!

Opposition to government boards, agencies and commissions having authority such as this shouldn’t be on a case-by-case basis, but on principle. The only state policy in respect to private property ownership should be this: Hands off! In the U.S., no government agency should have any power in depriving any citizen of his property rights.

If you would like more information regarding asset protection, trusts, family limited partnerships or the subject of this article please call or email our office.