Saving a Forest: What Can We Do? M. Reed

169 Saving a Forest: What Can We Do? by Michael Reed "... the freedomto use privatepropertyends at thepropertyline." - BENJAMIN A. ROGGE T he noisy chatter of chain saws and the • crack-thud of tall trees beingfelled had been going on for a full week and was getting nearer to my back property line every day. My neighborslived across the road to the eastandnext-doorto the south.To the north was an emptyparcel of acreageownedby the water bureau.The back of my house (and all my next door neighbors'houses)facedwest,gazingcon tentedlyat almost100 acresof verdantwhisper ing-pineforest. The trees offered an early respite from the searing heat of the setting afternoon sun, and broughtcool,peacefullyquietsummerevenings. But now that someone was cutting down those trees, the seclusionand idylliceveningswere in dangerof extinction. This eventuality evoked a singular question fromneighborsandfriends:"Whatcanwe do?" I foundit immenselyintriguingthat the unanimous solutiontheyproposedwas to forcefullystop the ownerof the treesfrom cuttingthemdown.

Phone calls buzzedback and forth. My next door neighbor called, asking in frantic tones, "What can we do? Can't we callthe SierraClub or some governmentagency?"A visitingfriend, sitting on the deck and looking out at what remainedof the trees, shook his head and com plainedthat thisdespoilerofthe forestshouldbe stopped. Mr. Reed is a technicalwriterin Portland, Oregon. All these reactions endorsed the use of some coercivemeansto stopthe ownerofthe treesfrom doing as he wished with his own property. This causedme to ponder some of the motivesbehind these reactions and to seek a more creative answer-a peaceful,noncoercivesolution. The CuttingContinues For sometime,I couldonlyhear the chainsaws. Soon, however,the loggerscould be seen right at the propertyline,fellinghugetrees that shookthe ground as they hit. That day, about mid-afternoon, I moseyed down to the fencelineand caughtthe attention of one of the loggers.I askedhim if the propertyhad been sold.He repliedthat onlythe trees had been sold and they were being cut down for mill pro cessing.He saidthat if theyweren'tcut down now they wouldbe past their primefor use as lumber.

At thispoint,I shouldexplainthat the ownerof this forest property had put it up for sale in ten acreparcelsabout a yearbeforethe firstchainsaw whipcordwaspulled.Duringthat time,noneofthe property had been sold. I surmisedthat since the ownercouldn'tsellthe propertyas he had original lyintended,he eitherwanted,or needed,to at least get valueout of the trees. After ponderingthe reactionsof my neighbors, it occurredto me that whattheywerecomplaining about was the loss of a perceivedbenefitthey had been receiving from the tall, magnificent pines growingbehindtheirhouses.Thesetreesprovided them with shade, privacy,and the aesthetic plea sure of a verdantview. But the problemwiththeir complaints,I concluded,was that they had been 170 THE FREEMAN. MAY 1990 receiving all these benefits for free. These benefits were the result of another property owner's deci sion to keep the trees on his property rather than build houses, turn the property into pasture, or put it to some other use.

It didn't occur to my neighbors that their own property had once been tree-covered-just like the property behind them-and that at some time, the decision had been made to cut the trees down and put it to another use. But now that they were using their own land just as they wished, they were (incomprehensibly, to me) proposing to tell anoth er property owner that he couldn't do as he wished with his property. As Bernard Siegan has observed, "Everyone wants to live under optimum conditions, and one means to that end is to control the use of other people's property."1 It was readily apparent that "control" certainly was the issue here. As I continued my research, I discovered and formulated a few noncoercive approaches these folks might have used to allow them to live under optimal conditions and still protect the perceived benefits of having the trees at their back doors. An InitialApproach As I mentioned before, the owner of the forest had placed the property up for sale earlier in the year. At that time, I read this as a signal that it might be prudent to place a bid on a piece of this property to ensure myself of a small remnant of privacy in the event that the entire area were sold for building lots.

Again, the original offer was for ten-acre parcels. However, I could afford to bid on only two acres. Decisively, I placed a counteroffer and, just as decisively,was turned down. I never determined whether the owner chose to sell in only ten-acre lots, or whether county zoning regulations forced him to sell in those quantities, but the bottom line was that this avenue was closed. However, this was one way in which my neigh bors could have protected their interests without interfering with anyone else's affairs. But, as far as I know, not one of them offered to buy any of this property when it was for sale. They wanted to keep the benefits of having the forest, but they weren't willing to pay for them. Their only solution was somehow to prevent the owner from taking away what didn't belong to them in the first place. CreativePossibilities Now, suppose that my neighbors were in the same situation that I was, and they couldn't afford to bid individually on the ten-acre parcels.

Another solution would have been the use of restrictive covenants. These covenants ". . . usu ally govern architectural requirements, cost of con struction, aesthetics, and maintenance." However, to ". . . completely control an area by restrictive covenants where none exist requires an agreement by every owner, since only the properties of those who sign are bound."2 But, as architect John Gillis points out, while it is true that restrictive covenants are most easily applied in new neighborhoods SAVING A FOREST: WHAT CAN WE DO? 171 where requirements can be agreed upon from the beginning of development, ". . . some measures can be taken in an existing area. A property associ ation can be formed, and members can agree to abide by certain limits. . . ." Of course, he says, there may be a few holdouts, but "If the agreeing landowners feel strongly enough, they can offer to purchase the few holdouts, so that deed covenants can be added to those properties. Then they can resell the property to a new owner. Another option is to ignore the few holdouts for the time being, since most of the neighbors have agreed on a cer tain set of conditions.

Then as the few holdouts come up for sale over the years, the association can bid on them and slowly complete the process of protection."3 In this case, perhaps I, and my concerned neighbors, could have combined our assets and co-owned a ten-acre parcel of land with a mutual agreement to preserve the trees. Finally,if none of these solutions to preserve the trees was satisfactory, the individual property own ers could have planted a row of trees at the back of their property as a kind of "privacy curtain." This would directly put their money where their per ceived benefits were. While it is beyond the scope of this essay to com pile an exhaustive catalog of solutions to the myr iad issues that surround the concept of private property, the key to each of my proposed solutions is that they are consistent ". . . with the ideals of a free society in which people should be able to do as they please unless their acts clearly harm or interfere with the liberties of others."4 This statement can be further distilled into a Confucian maxim that Leonard Read frequently emphasized, a phrase that I consider to be the essence of the freedom philosophy: "Do not unto others that which you would not have them do unto you." When this philosophy is consistently applied, freedom expands as all individuals are free to act peacefully and creatively without "neighborly" coercion. And as this philosophy is consistently appropriate to other areas and actions in life, it is just as appropriate when it comes to pri vate property and creating peaceful answers to the question, "What can we do?"

At last the day came when all the trees were gone. Where I once had shade for my deck beginning in late afternoon, I now had the glaring solar heat beating down until well past eight in the evening. O.K., I thought, so now what? Then, one day as I gazed out over the now clear-cut acreage, the wise words of Alexander Graham Bell came back to me from somewhere over the barren horizon. "When one door closes," I could almost hear him gently saying, "another opens, but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us." In this moment of enlightenment, I created my own peaceful solution: I decided to purchase an awning. Soon it was installed in all its glory. In addition to being colorfully striped and enhancing the appearance of the house, the awning shaded the deck for the entire afternoon when the sun was fiercely blazing overhead. And when the sun final ly dipped below the horizon, I discovered the secret that the tall trees had been keeping: swirling vermillion and neon-tangerine sunsets that were splashed, as if by some heavenly impressionist, across the canvas of the turquoise-fading-to-violet evening sky. Another door truly had opened.

Interestingly enough, after all the initial com ments from my neighbors, no one actually did any thing at all. As economists know, everything has a cost attached to it. This includes the time, money, and energy it takes to implement coercive propos als. I'm thankful that my neighbors, for whatever reason, found the costs too high. Epilogue A few weeks later, I glanced out my back win dow and saw about a dozen people walking on the clear-cut land in the distance. They would walk a few steps, bend down, walk another few steps, bend down, and repeat the process. Out came the binoculars. With their assistance, I could immedi ately see what these people were doing. I smiled and wondered what my friend would say when he learned that his "despoiler of the for est" was planting new trees. D 1. Bernard H. Siegan, OtherPeople'sProperty(Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1976), p. 11. 2. Ibid., pp. 58, 59.

3. John Gillis, "The Impracticality of Zoning," The Freeman, October 1987, p. 374. 4. Siegan, p. 55.