Endangered Species and Property Rights

Re “Parable on Property Rights,” by Richard Pombo and Joseph Farah, Column Right, July 21:

Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Tracy) condemns the Endangered Species Act by telling us a fable about a condo owner who is cheated out of the use of his condo because one of the bedrooms is a habitat for the “endangered Manhattan cockroach.” This is the same Pombo who ran the kangaroo court hearings on “reforming the ESA” just over a year ago. His credibility was completely snuffed by his practice of parading half a dozen complainers before the panel for every one defender of the ESA.

It’s true that the ESA restricts the uses of property providing a home to endangered or threatened species. The most perfectly thought-out law is always a compromise. The custody of a piece of the planet does not entitle the landholder to help destroy a species. Custody is temporary.

The property rights we all cherish must share priority with human rights, which, in my opinion, include the right to live on a clean, healthy and fertile planet. As any schoolchild knows, without biodiversity our world will be dirty, unhealthy, sterile, and even if our species somehow manages to survive, very, very lonely.

DAVID PERLMAN

Laguna Beach

* The authors ask readers to imagine a scenario in which they have just purchased a $300,000 condo in New York City only to find that they must submit to regulations protecting cockroaches.

When I imagine this scenario, I imagine that I would ask a local real estate attorney to investigate all local ordinances and zoning codes before making the purchase (the California Department of Real Estate has a Web page that provides this type of information; perhaps New York has a similar one). At that point I would make an educated decision weighed against my fondness, or lack thereof, for cockroaches.

The argument supported by these authors reminds me of the whiny people who build or buy houses next to the Hollywood Bowl and complain about the noise.

CHRISTOPHER STEELE

Los Angeles