"When Mike and Chantell Sackett bought a half-acre lot in the Priest Lake area of Idahos Panhandle, their plan was to build a home in which they could raise a family. Four years later, there’s still no house on the lot. What the Sacketts have built instead is a high-stakes legal challenge against the Environmental Protection Agency over its enforcement of the Clean Water Act. After the Sacketts began grading the dirt lot in 2007, the EPA ordered them to stop, saying that their parcel was in fact a federally designated wetland and that by filling it, they had violated the Clean Water Act [even though] the property was sandwiched between two houses in a residentially-zoned neighborhood..." (Washington Times)
In the end, the EPA refused to grant the Sacketts a hearing; the couple is now waiting to hear whether the Supreme court will hear their case. Apparently, this whole thing started when their neighbor decided he didn't want anyone developing the land adjacent to his home, so he alerted the EPA.
Certainly, it makes no sense for the EPA to be so inflexible in enforcing this policy. According to the article, there is no standing water on the property, and therefore the land can't be a wetland if it's not wet. However, rather than railing against the EPA - as ideologically satisfying as that may be in this case - I believe that the real legal case should be against the realtor who sold them this property. The fact that the neighbor knew that the lot was on a federally-protected wetland means that the information was by no means secret. Had the Sacketts known that the land was going to be subject to restrictions on development or humongous fines in the case of development, they likely would have passed on the deal or, at the very least, demanded a significantly reduced price that reflects the loss in value of the land from not being able to develop it. Either the Sackett's are naive or the realtor withheld vital information regarding the property's value.
There are many benefits to suing the realtor rather than the EPA. Precedent is an important concept in law and helps to guide legal decisions in future cases. I imagine a judge would be much more likely to side with the Sacketts against a realtor than the EPA because, in ruling against the EPA, the judge would set a precedent that may make it much more difficult for the EPA to enforce wetlands conservation policy, which is truly valuable to society. Ruling against a realtor, on the other hand, sets a precedent that has unequivocally positive implications for society. By holding the realtor responsible for representing the true value and relating all relevant information of a property, the judge would help to lower transaction costs to homebuyers by increasing transparency in the market for houses (which is critical to maintaining economic efficiency).
In summary, it doesn't make sense to sue the EPA for enforcing the law, as stupid as the law may be. The Sacketts should be suing the bejeesus out of the realtor for not disclosing information vital to the property's value at the time of sale. I would imagine that they'd have a better shot at becoming whole or, at the very least, of a judge actually taking the case.
I know I'm treading on my colleague's turf a little, but there are some good economic reasons for my viewpoint. Maybe he can chime in a little, as this is an interesting case that is not nearly as cut-and-dry as the article would make it seem.
No comments:
Post a Comment