We've all heard about the problem posed by "takings," when the government passes regulations that prevent property owners from developing their land. Well, the NYT has a piece about efforts by Maine residents to prevent a property owner from doing what she wants with her land, but it never discusses it in the context of takings. That is because the property owner is an environmentalist who wants to turn the land that she has bought into a park and exclude uses like logging and snowmobiling.
Of course the link between "takings" and environmental regulation is nonesense. The government takes actions all the time that raise or lower the value of property. Adults understand these risks when they buy property. Unfortunately, the media has chosen to treat the "anti-takings" crew as a serious property rights movement, instead of just a new approach to undermining environmental regulation.
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. This month, we're trying to raise $50,000 to help fuel our election coverage, and we've fallen behind on reaching our goal. Any amount you give today will bring us closer to making our reporting possible—and a generous donor has agreed to match all online donations, so your impact will be doubled.
