Property Rights

Proponents of an extensive, some say radical, property-rights measure that went down to solid defeat at the hands of Washington voters Tuesday say they will continue their quest for a law that protects private property owners when environmental and other regulations limit the use and value of their land.

Lawmakers began considering amendments to China's Constitution on Monday that would enshrine protection of private property and human rights for the first time since the Communists swept to power in 1949. The changes, already endorsed by the Communist Party, also would declare support for entrepreneurs who are creating millions of jobs and driving the country's economic boom. A vote is due Sunday, and the largely ceremonial National People's Congress appears sure to approve the changes.

Monterey Park, where are you going? Frequently, I hear accusations of bribery, observe traffic problems, businesses changing, concerns about store signs, controversy in choosing a new police chief, chaotic City Council meetings, citizens being denied the opportunity to address an issue and now the council's plan to reduce building--after, long after the issue should have been resolved. ("Monterey Park Rejects Plan to Change Zoning in Residential Areas," Times, April 27.) Some of the council members' solutions are to downzone property, change property definitions and other thoughts.

I am writing in regard to the plans for a new 10-screen cinema on the southwest corner of Louise Street and Wilson Avenue. Am I correct in saying that the property in question is owned by the First Baptist Church of Glendale, but under the powers of eminent domain the City of Glendale has the right to determine the ultimate use of the property? This does not seem fair. I think the church should be able to put their people of senior age into a housing unit there. I do not belong to this church, but it would seem a shame if the people of this church would have to live somewhere else, not close to the church that they attend.

The rugged landscape of the American West brings out both the enraptured naturalist and the partisan ideologue in Gale A. Norton. In June 1991, soon after she took office as Colorado's attorney general, Norton hiked into the snowy upper reaches of Rocky Mountain National Park. Walking with aide Trish Bangert, Norton rhapsodized that the scene was "like a spiritual experience for her."

The Fifth Amendment conjures up images of 1950s mobsters, and, more recently, former White House officials, telling congressional committees that they are refusing to answer questions on grounds of their constitutional protection against self-incrimination. But, thanks to Supreme Court rulings in two California cases in the court term that ended last month, "pleading the Fifth" may take on a whole new significance for property owners and their lawyers.

The Interior Department, hoping to defuse some of the criticism of the Endangered Species Act, assured landowners Thursday their property won't be placed at further risk if they agree to a formal species protection plan. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said he hoped the new policy will show that the federal law protecting endangered animal and plant species is flexible and should be supported.

In 1986, David H. Lucas bought two beachfront lots on the Isle of Palms in South Carolina for $957,000. He wanted to build two houses, one for himself and one to sell. Two years later, South Carolina passed the Beachfront Management Act, designed to protect the state's coastal area from overdevelopment and erosion. Under that law, no building was to be permitted on land subject to beach erosion. Overnight, Lucas' prime lots became nearly worthless.

A nasty feud over hillside views and property rights has escalated as one Torrance couple accused another of making racial slurs and "foul-mouthed tirades." The accusations were made in court papers that Bruce and Carmen Kennedy filed in Torrance Superior Court, requesting an injunction to end alleged harassment by their neighbors, James and Lauretta Ellingson.

Contrary to the often acrimonious character of trade negotiations between Japan and the United States, the two nations last month successfully completed talks aimed at harmonizing their policies regarding technology and intellectual property rights. And though it received little attention, this achievement may have a long-lasting impact on the international competitiveness of U.S. industry.