Land Use

Worst news writing of last week award goes to the NY Time's David Stout, in a piece apparently grasping out for the coat-tails of the sensationalist reporting that followed the Kelo decision.

Last week, the Court announced it will hear two cases touching on the Clean Water Act. The cases address the government's authority to regulate wetlands--they are more or less statutory interpretation cases. Here, though, are segments of the write-up in the Times; reflecting a sad mix of human interest news writing and post-Kelo ignorance of land use law:

To many people who have followed the ordeal of Mr. Rapanos, his case is about a real-life American dream clashing with a nightmare of government bureaucracy.

…

In the late 1980's, Mr. Rapanos began clearing part of a 175-acre tract he had bought in the Midland, Mich., area in hopes of selling it to a mall developer and adding to the already substantial fortune he had built through years of hard work. In preparing the land for an eventual mall, he spread sand over part of it, even though state officials had warned him that some of his property consisted of protected wetlands.

Environmental officials say wetlands are vital for flood control and as habitat for fish and wildlife, and that they must be guarded to avoid polluting nearby waterways.

Environment officials "say"? Is this along the lines of "potential global warming"? The importance of wetlands is hardly disputed. This, though, is the kicker:

His determination has been fueled in part by a bitter childhood memory of a chemical company worker upending the candy stand he had set up near the plant and calling him a "dirty Greek."

Yes...no longer does the issue at hand in this case matter. Let us focus, rather, on the determination of this man that led him to fill up wetlands with sand in order to sell the land to a mall.