A recent “debate” on San Angelo Live! provides an illuminating example of focusing on non-essential issues when discussing property rights issues. On August 6, Brian McLaughlin, a director at the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, wrote a piece that claimed:
Unfortunately, landowners facing the threat of eminent domain stand little chance of being treated justly or being paid a fair price for what is taken from them.
While this point is true, McLaughlin offers a weak explanation as to why this happens:
Some pipeline and transmission line companies are better than others, but profits often outweigh the rights of landowners who must sacrifice their property for the public good. Lax oversight and little transparency in the process also create fertile ground for abuse.
According to the author, profits, lax oversight, and little transparency are the reason that landowners are not treated justly or receive a fair price. Such an explanation has plausibility, but it doesn’t address the fundamental issue.
A fair price is possible only when all of the parties involved is acting voluntarily. When individuals are free to walk away from a deal, they can decide whether the price offered is fair. If it isn’t, they can negotiate further or cancel the deal. But when individuals are forced to sell, as occurs under eminent domain, the concept of “fair” is inapplicable, no matter how much compensation one might receive.
The market price of a property is only one component of the value it holds to the owner. For example, if the land has been in the family for generations, its value includes intangibles such as family traditions and heritage. For some individuals, no amount of money would be fair compensation for that land.
But intangible values are not considered when eminent domain is used. The owner is forced to “sell,” regardless of his desires or choices. This is the essential issue.
On August 11, Thrue Cannon, president of the Texas Pipeline Association (TPA), responded to McLaughlin’s article. Cannon wrote that
in 2017 TPA conducted a sampling of 15,000 miles of pipeline that were constructed over the previous six years from almost 35,000 tracts of land. The data shows that the industry filed condemnation proceedings less than four percent of the time, illustrating a 96 percent success rate in negotiating with landowners; less than one percent of the right of way acquired ever went to a special commissioners’ hearing and less than three hundredths of one (0.03) percent ever went to trial. In fact, pipeline operators frequently pay substantially more for easements than the appraised value.
In short, the “debate” came down to McLaughlin claiming that landowners were not compensated fairly and Cannon claiming that they were. When a debate focuses on non-essentials, claims and counter-claims are all that are left.
Far too often, those attempting to defend property rights do so by focusing on non-essential issues. And economic issues are frequently the focus. While economic issues are certainly important, they are not the essential issue.
The right to property means the freedom to create, use, keep, trade, and dispose of material values. To exercise the right to property, one must be free to act on one’s own judgment. One must be free to accept or reject the terms and conditions of any trade. Property rights aren’t about prices; they are about the freedom of individuals to decide what price is fair.