A couple weeks ago, I wrote about how the Battle Creek sandbar in Calvert County, Maryland was essentially commandeered by the state. In a nutshell, the state decided to plant sea grass on a sandbar patronized at low tide by boaters, which has effectively rendered it useless to the taxpayers who just paid for the grass.
Well, as a result of my original post, Corinne Cook, clerk to the board of Calvert County commissioners, set about investigating this matter a bit further. Ms. Cook spoke with a representative at Calvert County Soil Conservation and put the information he shared into an email, which I've reprinted in part here:
1. The sandbar is in fact privately owned by Walt and Susie Hance Wells, originally owned by Y.D. (Young Duke) Hance, Susie's father.
2. The State (or County) did a project elsewhere in the County that disturbed wetland, so therefore, they had to find a place to plant on another site in order to stay within guidelines.
3. Soil Conservation sought out the [Wellses] to use the sandbar as it was a perfect place for a wetland planting . . . according to them.
4. The [Wellses] gladly allowed the County to do this as they were having problems with OTHER visitors to the sandbar.
Given that I was told by the son of the owners of the land connected to the Battle Creek sandbar that the sandbar is in fact public property, it seems that there may be some confusion as to who actually owns it. However, as I'm not in a position at this point to dispute the veracity of the information divulged by the representative at Soil Conservation, I'll go ahead and assume that the sandbar is privately owned by the Wellses.
At any rate, it appears the Wellses were indeed growing weary of boaters playing loud music and leaving trash on the sandbar. Therefore, if it's true that the state requested the owners' permission to plant sea grass on their sandbar, there's nothing you, I, or the general public can do about it insofar that we'd have any right to tell a family what it's to do with its property. Indeed, the Wells family could deed the property to the state if it chose to do so.
However, we do have plenty of right to protest when the state decides to misuse public funds -- in this case, when it decides to subsidize wealthy landowners at the expense of taxpayers. The Wells family may have no problem with Soil Conservation's decision to plant the sea grass -- they very well may have preferred it -- but that certainly doesn't necessarily legitimize the expenditure of taxpayer resources to do it. Indeed, Ms. Cook notes that "taxpayers paid approximately $1,700 to have the planting done by the County." I suppose I should go ahead and put in my request now for Calvert County to reseed my yard in the fall.
This issue is nothing if not entirely confusing. For one thing, Ms. Cook originally spoke with the Calvert County commissioners with whom she works, and she was told they essentially could do nothing because this is a state issue -- even though you'll notice that the planting of sea grass was actually done by Calvert County Soil Conservation. This is precisely the type of confusion that is bred when the government more or less has carte blanche when it comes to spending our money.
Moreover, it's practically impossible to even track where taxpayer money is coming from in the first place these days, given that the federal government subsidizes any number of projects for the states, which in turn subsidize local governments. And good luck getting your upstanding representatives to admit where they're spending all your hard-earned money.
The U.S. is little more than a centrally-planned state today, and it's all too evident that private property rights have been a significant casualty of this continuing encroachment on our rights and property. However, this shouldn't be too surprising because the government doesn't care about our property. We are merely wards of the state, hosts on which parasitic, power-hungry politicians can feast by confiscating our income and assets in order to enrich themselves along with their closest friends and special interest supporters.
Think I'm joking? Whether politicians facilitate land deals to transfer wealth from one property owner to another, stadium deals that fleece taxpayers in order to subsidize gazillionaire professional sports team owners, or relatively small land grabs like the Battle Creek sandbar, it's all theft. Theft that results from the compulsory taxation of citizens who may have no use whatsoever for the projects at hand. Theft that would get you and me rightly thrown in jail if we did to another what the government does to us.
If the Wellses are fed up with boaters using their property, they -- not the government -- are responsible for taking the first steps to prohibit such use. "No Trespassing" signs cost about two bucks at Wal-Mart. Shotguns are a bit more expensive. They -- not the taxpayers -- can pay to have sea grass planted on their sandbar. And if these measures fail, they have every right to expect their land to be protected from trespassers by the police, who are supposedly first and foremost entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing laws upholding our property rights.
To be fair, the Wellses apparently didn't have any problem with local boaters using their sandbar, and only began to grow frustrated when out-of-towners began to abuse it. However, because they weren't willing to do what virtually everyone else does and use their own money to protect their property, local taxpayers are the ones left with their bill. They should know better. So should the state and county governments.
And with any luck, Maryland taxpayers will know all about this fiasco in short order and demand much more accountability and responsibility from their government.
UPDATE (6/20): Ms. Cook has informed us that she was originally misinformed as to the cost of the wetland project. It was actually $17,000, not $1,700. As she rightly observes, what a difference a zero can make!
[Note: This article also appears at my personal Who's Your Nanny? blog.]
Comments