A local libertarian who comments periodically on posts to Channel Surfing has offered a critique of open space taxes on The Blog of South Brunswick. It is an interesting approach, though I couldn’t disagree more with his reasoning.
Basically, he views the taxman, to use George Harrison’s word, as a thief and government in general as an imposition. Open space is a good thing, he agrees, but he believes it should be funded privately.
This assumes that all potential land buyers are equal. They’re not. Developers have deep pockets and citizens, even large groups of citizens, do not have the kind of cash that would be needed to target and then outbid developers for land.
That’s why citizens turn to their local, county and state governments to intercede.
As a general rule, I distrust large accumulations of power. But there is a difference between elected government and a corporation. The government — at least in the United States — derives its power from the citizens. Corporations do not.
That makes government the equalizer, the leveller, protecting individuals against corporate abuses.
Where things get distorted, however, is when elected officials view themselves as accountable not to voters, but to campaign contributors — but that is a subject for another day.
In the case of government-preserved open space, it is the power of local, county and state governments to raise money and then spend it that offsets the ability of developers to dig into their own deep pockets. This allows citizens to compete for undeveloped land and — maybe, just maybe — keep some of it green and untouched.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
Hank Kalet 