Let's finish our discussion of Lucas and "total regulatory takings" by discussing note 6 on page 848.
Professor Sax is a critic of Lucas, and he says the problem with Lucas is it focuses too much on the owner's right to develop undeveloped land and not sufficiently on "the broader view of land as performing in its natural state vital ecological functions, such as water purification by wetlands, provision of habitat for wildlife, and restoration of beaches by sand dunes."
So, Prof. Sax would tell Mr. Lucas that it is a privilege of citizenship to invest $1 million in land in order to serve the public's interest in ecology by leaving land in its natural state to provide ecological functions.
What are your thoughts about this? Should ecologically-sensitive land be developed? If not, who should bear the costs of laws requiring land to be left in its natural state? Individual property owners such as Mr. Lucas? Or the public through taxes designed to provide Just Compensation?
Which view is more likely to protect the ecology? Which view is more fair?
