Susan Tellem says that the “Real Point of Protest” (June 27) was that she and about 50 others “do not want the commissioners swayed by a handful of developers and property owners who want their land protected.” The idea that government officials shouldn’t be swayed by property owners trying to protect their land is frightening enough to deserve real protest. Ms. Tellem seems to fail to understand the fundamental role property rights have had in our country’s successes-both economic and social. The Fifth Amendment states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Ms. Tellem seems to dismiss this right as a luxury of the rich. The Soviet Union abdicated the property rights of the minority for the public good early last century. It didn’t work out very well for the public. However, places like China and North Korea still run state-controlled enterprises. Perhaps Ms. Tellem would be happier living in one of these places, where property rights are held in less esteem (and environmental issues in even lower esteem).
It’s easy to take a crack at a few “rich property owners,” but I imagine they are the ones least at risk if government agencies start abdicating property rights. The strength of our Constitution is that it protects everybody, not just the majority. This is to say that often just because a crowd favors something doesn’t make it right-think lynch mobs and even Proposition 187. Fortunately, the courts appear to understand this, which is where all this stuff seems headed. The real concern, in my view, is that the battle between “property owners” and the Coastal Commission may end up polarizing the left and the right to the point that the moderates end up being thrown into the hands of radicals like Ms. Tellem. Moderates, who care both about the environment and the Constitution, deserve more than the radical, ill-conceived notions that Ms. Tellem espouses.
Tena Fishman