Interesting post over at Pacific Views on the pro, cons and thoughts on the "takings" argument against habitat protections. I've been reading emails from the anti-CAO group up in King County for the past few weeks, and the one thing that strikes me about their argument is how is doesn't seem to address environmentalism at all.
Their argument is stuck on the track of freedom and private property rights, seemingly saying that "I have the freedom to do with my property what I want." On the surface a solid argument, which hits some potholes though when I start thinking of putting up a 7-11 on my property.
They never talk about the problem that these ordinance are supposed to deal with. When the do, they refer to it as a "problem that really isn't there" sort of thing, or shluffing off the responsibility of the problem to urban dwellers, saying that the Seattle residents created the problem, now rural residents have to come up with a solution.