SFO runway expansion
Topics: Transportation
26 Apr 2000
From: Ervan Darnell
I often hear this, even from people of some economic sense, that only the
government can do large projects, like roads and airports. A tidy example
came along today of why that is so. The reason has less to do with a
public goods arguments and more to do with abusing its monopoly power in at
least three ways:
1) The government grants itself an exception to its own rules.
2) The government raises taxes in a hidden fashion by forcing bond
prices higher by giving a tax deduction on its own bonds.
3) The big one: only the government can apply eminent domain.
SFO is trying to expand its runways further into San Francisco Bay and
buying back some wetlands in the process [1]. Actually, I don't think it's
such a bad deal, but the mechanism is revealing:
>SACRAMENTO -- San Francisco won early approval Monday to bypass detailed
>environmental studies of converting South Bay salt ponds to tidal wetlands
>as part of a proposed billion-dollar airport runway expansion, over
>opposition from San Jose and environmentalists.
Not only did they get the exception, they got it simply by having the state
Senate vote on the exception, nothing resembling a sensible "special case"
analysis, straight political power to create two standards. We'd be better
off just to put the senators up for open bid and let whoever wants the
exception the most buy it.
And:
>The project would come at a heavy environmental cost, filling as much as
>1,400 acres of bay waters. Modern law prevents such filling;
A lot of people would love to fill the Bay to make more space. In fact,
many people held title to deeded lots of Bay water (with the intention of
filling it) when the bill was passed in the first place. Where is their
exception? How is the airport more important? It's surely valuable, but
why more so?
The wetlands owner does not want to sell. So:
>...the airport contends it has the power of eminent domain to seize the lands.
Can I claim eminent domain to expand my golf course, or even my private
(small plane) airport? Not a chance. This is the one that has really
stalled any private entity from ever competing on large land use
projects. If eminent domain is such a good idea, why not give it to
everyone (at say apparent market value + 25%)? If it's dangerous, then why
should the government have it? It hasn't proven to be any more sensitive
to (claimed) sentimental value than private developers. Worse, the
government has a bad sense of what really constitutes an investment and
such unfair competition prevents people from seeing how much better (for
instance) a private road might be. The real cost is hidden.
-----------------
[1] http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/front/docs/ponds25.htm
===============================================================
Ervan Darnell |"Term limits are not enough.
ervan@iname.com | We need jail."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get 3 months FREE and a chance to WIN a trip to London, England when
you receive, manage and pay your bills online with Paytrust.com!
Stamps, checks and bills in your mailbox are history. Enroll Today!
http://click.egroups.com/1/3556/6/_/220122/_/956767222/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home