Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the expansion of federal authority and a new environmental awareness have forced the issue of property rights into the forefront of public debate. The property rights movement contends that the exercise of freedom rests with the individual, and unless the property is used for criminal purposes, it should be free of government supervision. Opponents of this view argue that government is duty-bound to curb individual liberty whenever it disrupts the greater good of society. The debate over property rights in the United States turns on a much larger debate over the nature of federalism, constitutional government, and individual liberty.
Property rights have a long history in English and American common law, but the rise of the environmental movement and subsequent environmental legislation in the 1970s intensified the issue of individual rights of property and governmental regulation of property and land-usage. In 1970 President Richard M. Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act, which established a federal interest in protecting the environment from the adverse effects of human development. Within a few years, Congress passed all of the laws that currently form the core of American environmental policy, including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act amendments, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972, which imposed progressively more stringent requirements on industries and cities to reduce pollution; the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which earmarked money for the Federal Wilderness Service for the purpose of saving plant and animals species listed as endangered, through research and, if necessary, regulatory injunction; and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, which authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to specify federal standards for drinking water. At first, these laws provided only minor injunctions against violators, but after undergoing amendment throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, they gradually assumed considerable powers of criminal enforcement, including heavy fines and prison terms. During the 1980s, Congress passed environmentally related acts, which designated certain significant sites as “green spaces”; the 1983 National Trails System Act permitted unused rail beds to be converted into trails pending possible resurgence of the railroad industry. Since the original rail leases included clauses returning the property to the owner, the “rails to trails” program angered many people who believed the land should revert to them.
In the late 1970s the courts experienced a surge of civil suits against the government by property owners, especially farmers, ranchers, and timber interests, claiming loss of property value as a result of federal regulatory interference. The Supreme Court created a legal framework with which to analyze the potential taking of property value through regulatory interference in the 1978 decision, Penn Central Trans-portation v. New York City. It established three considerations necessary to establish the threshold between compensatory and noncompensatory takings, including economic impact of the government action; the extent to which government action interfered with the reasonable expectations of investors; and the character of government action. Over the next decade, in more than two dozen cases, the Court held that even minor use of eminent domain required compensation. At the same time, the Court repeatedly concluded that the loss of economic value alone was insufficient to require compensation, unless the loss was 100 percent.
The combination of assertive environmental laws, and a series of unfavorable Court decisions inspired a property rights movement throughout the Midwest and West in the 1970s. Advocates included landowners who suffered federal takings directly, or those who feared they might in future; industries with direct economic interests tied to public and private lands, including real estate developers, farmers, ranchers, and extraction industries (timber, mining, and energy); and the conservative movement and libertarians opposed to federal expansion in principle. In 1988 President Ronald W. Reagan issued Executive Order No. 12630, titled “Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Right,” which ordered federal agencies to compensate landowners for any loss of value, whether through temporary or permanent occupation, or through regulatory interference.
During the 1990s, President William J. Clinton shifted administrative support away from property rights advocates, toward environmental concerns. In 1996 President Clinton used the Antiquities Act of 1906 to convert 1.7 million acres of federal land throughout Utah into the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the largest of its kind in the contiguous 48 states. The following year he announced the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which had the potential to restrict development throughout millions of acres of public and private land along 250 rivers. In 1999 Clinton issued an Executive Order 13112, titled “Invasive Species” directing all federal agencies and their commercial partners to focus efforts on returning the biosphere to the condition it was believed to be in prior to 1492, including removing all plants that are not indigenous to North America. In 2000 Clinton announced plans to protect 750,000 acres of private forestland from development, while also designating 60 million acres of federal land off-limits to road building, logging, and mining.
Property rights advocates oppose the new environmental regulations because they see them as depriving landowners of substantial property value without compensating them for the loss. Conservationists and environmentalist groups argue that the definition of acceptable property use evolves over time, and that property owners should not expect compensation for rights they were never entitled to. Property rights advocates argue that the government’s right should be extended to prevent an owner from using his property in a way that is injurious to his neighbor. They argue a neighbor is entitled only to that which belongs free and clear, such as peace and solitude, protection from noxious odors, noises, and particulate matter. The neighbor is not, they said, entitled to “aesthetic” comforts requiring cooperation from others outside his property, such as an unencumbered view. Society may elect to include scenic byways, heritage corridors, and wildlife reserves as important social goods, but the government must not use regulatory authority to take these goods without paying for them.
In contrast, the conservation and environmental movement views nature as an interconnected ecological system; individuals possess land, but they must use it in a way that is harmonious with the needs of society at large. No one, they argue, has a right to unlimited usage, and thus the government does not interfere with property rights when it restricts harmful usage. They further argue that compensating property owners for regulations that are necessary to preserve ecological integrity would not only be wasteful but would significantly hinder the survival of society—social reform would never advance if the state had to pay citizens not to engage in destructive behavior.
See also AGRICULTURE; CONSERVATION, ENVIRONMENTALISM, AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; KeLO V. CiTY OF New London.
Further reading: Michael D. Klapowitz, Property Rights, Economics, and the Environment (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 2000); Robert Meltz, The Takings Issue: Constitutional Limits on Land-Use, Control and Environmental Regulation (Washington, D. C.: Island Press, 1999).
—Aharon W. Zorea
Quayle, J. Danforth (1947- ) U. S. vice president J. Danforth Quayle was elected the 44th vice president of the United States in 1988 at the age of 41, when George H. W. Bush won election to the White House. Quayle was known for his close relations with the conservative movement and his support of family values.
Quayle was born on February 4, 1947, in Indianapolis, Indiana. After spending much of his youth in Arizona, where his family owned a leading Phoenix newspaper, he graduated from Huntington High School in Huntington, Indiana, in 1965. He matriculated at De Pauw University, where he received his B. A. degree in political science in 1969. Following graduation, Quayle joined the Indiana National Guard and served from 1969 to 1975. While serving in the guard, he earned a law degree from Indiana University in 1971. His service in the National Guard later led political opponents to accuse him of having avoided the draft during the Vietnam War.
Quayle became an investigator for the Consumer Protection division of the Indiana Attorney General’s Office in July 1971. That same year he became an administrative assistant to Governor Edgar Whitcomb. In November 1972 Quayle married Marilyn Tucker of Indianapolis. They have three children.
In 1976 Quayle was elected to Congress from Indiana’s Fourth Congressional District, defeating an eight-term incumbent. He won reelection in 1978 by a landslide. In 1980, Quayle, at the age of 33, became the youngest person ever elected to the U. S. Senate from Indiana, defeating three-term Democrat Birch Bayh.
In the Senate, Quayle served on the Armed Services Committee, the Budget Committee, and the Labor and Human Resources Committee. In 1982 he coauthored with Senator Edward M. Kennedy the Job Training Partnership Act. In 1986 Quayle won reelection to the Senate.
Quayle remained in the Senate until 1988 when vice president and Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush chose him as his running mate. The Bush-Quayle ticket went on to win the November election by a convincing sweep of 38 states, capturing 426 electoral votes. Quayle became the 44th vice president of the United States.
Many consider Quayle to have also been one of the most active American vice presidents in the history of the United States. He made official state visits to 47 countries, discussing a multitude of issues. He led the administration deregulation efforts as chairman of the Council on Competitiveness, chaired the National Space Council, and worked as Bush’s liaison with Capitol Hill.
Quayle’s gaffes drew relentless criticism from the press and became comedy material for late-night television hosts. Some of his gaffes were not confirmed, however, such as his alleged remark about not knowing how to speak Latin before going to Latin America. Other of his gaffes were confirmed, such as when he corrected a young schoolgirl’s spelling of “potato” by adding an “e” to the end of the word. His relations with the press did not get better when he gave a widely reported speech on May 19, 1992, to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in which he accused cultural elites of eroding family values. In the speech, he criticized the then-popular television sitcom, Murphy Brown, in which the main character was having a child out of wedlock. Quayle declared, “It doesn’t help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown, a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid women, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another lifestyle choice. We cannot be embarrassed out of our belief that two parents, married to each other, are better in most cases for children than one.” These remarks drew heavy criticism from much of the press and news commentators, although polls showed, at the time, that the majority of the American public agreed with him. Nonetheless, the ridicule he took for his gaffes, and this statement, created a public image of Quayle that hurt his political career.
He left office when the Bush-Quayle ticket was defeated in the election of 1992.
Since his term as vice president, he has authored Standing Firm and The American Family: Discovering the Values That Make Us Strong, in addition to writing a nationally syndicated weekly newspaper column. Shortly after his move, Quayle also moved his political action committee to Arizona. In 1999 he unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination.
Simon & Schuster, 1992); Dan Quayle, Standing Firm: A Vice-Presidential Memoir (New York: HarperCollins, 1994).
—Leah Blakey
Quotas (racial) See affirmative action.
Further reading: David Broder and Bob Woodward, The Man Who Would Be President: Dan Quayle (New York:
World History
