Regulations in Rancho Santa Fe saved area

There was this article from the Arizona Republic today about how strict regulations saved many homes in Rancho Sante Fe, CA. Here is the challenge as I see it. How do you institute good regulations, but balance them with property rights? Is it a false dicotomy to compare the two?

One of the problems that seems constant in this debate has a lot to do with people that are highly skeptical of all government regulation or involvement. I can imagine most people would feel put upon if the government told them which trees they could plant and how often they need to water plants.


Unfortunately, reality seems to frequently trump these arguments. For instance, how long can Arizona be competitive economically if traffic and air quality continues to worsen? What dangers are inherent in not regulating water resources as Arizona grows? I know many people hate government involvement, but how do we insure that Arizona is a good, economically viable place to live when the market is not capable of providing the needed stability?


Sometimes I have the feeling that many people let denial and cognitive dissonance control their decisions. I also feel at times that the sky is falling mentality of the environment community can be counter productive at persuading people. Global warming is a good example of this. I don't think most people understand why a 1 or 2 degree increase in global temperatures is a problem and why it would be a bad thing them.

Beyond all of the political fighting, there is an area of public policy that involves more technocratic decision making than the ideological concerns can address. Government needs to do certain things regardless of the anti-government people think and regardless of pie in sky political theory. The idea that government is not capable cannot be accepted if we want a strong society. Government like anything else works well when managed well.