There was a time when the ecology movement meant something about clean air, better water, and improving conditions for humans. Somehow this original direction has been transformed into a movement which expends great energy raising funds and battling nature's general inclination to wipe out assorted flies, vultures, and species even Noah would refuse.

No one especially cares if you prefer to leave your property undeveloped so that shortnose suckers (a fish, I understand). Dismal Swamp shrews, or coastal California gnatcatchers (a bird) can live another day. But where matters get dicey is when someone says you cannot develop land you bought, land on which you pay taxes, land you own, to save creatures nature has not favored.

In the calculus of environmental action there is no place for cost/benefit analysis. Either a creature is to be saved or it isn't, and the result is that no one can explain just why millions of dollars have been spent saving the endangered "Dehli Sands flower-loving fly" when such money might just as well have gone to build housing for the poor.

There is also, to put it mildly, a rather strong conflict between the "taking" clause of the Fifth Amendment and expanding rules and regulations which limit property development in the name of some absolutist notion of preservation.

Despite such concerns, the good news is that reasonable environmentalism and the rights of property owners can co-exist.

The Nature Conservancy is in business to save various plants, fish and animals. But rather than tell other people what to do with their land, the Conservancy has a better idea: They welcome property donations, and in many cases bid against developers and other would-be buyers when a given parcel becomes available for purchase.

In other words, there is a price for environmental preferences and the Conservancy is willing to pay market rates in pursuit of its goals. This is a policy and practice that should offend no one.

As an example of its work, the Conservancy has just bought two ranches with 61,000 acres of in California's Diablo Valley. The price: $19 million, a sum paid for with $8.7 million in private grants, $1.3 million in federal money, and a $9 million "low interest" mortgage which TNC should repay in the coming year.

"The Conservancy uses non-confrontational, market-based economic solutions to protect habitat -- a win-win approach to conservation," says the group of its program. "Working only with willing sellers and donors, the Conservancy protects land through gifts, exchanges, conservation easements, management agreements, purchases from the Conservancy's revolving Land Preservation Fund, debt-for-nature swaps, and management partnerships. The resulting preserves are managed with the most sophisticated ecological techniques available."

Founded in 1951, the Conservancy now has 1,600 preserves throughout the U.S. They claim to have protected some 10 million acres in this country, as well as 57 million acres overseas. The organization is funded with dues from 900,000 members as well as various donations, grants, and contributions.

A non-profit, tax-exempt entity, TNC raises money for the "protection of biological diversity." There is merit to this idea -- as an example it may be that important drugs can be made from plants and animals now on the verge of extinction. And there is special merit when a species can be saved without devaluing property owner rights. That's an impressive form of preservation -- one that should be recognized, respected, and encouraged.

Question Of The Week

Q We have a new home, less than a year old, which we need to sell because of a job change. The developer has now begun to offer less expensive units and the result is that we must sell at a loss. Shouldn't the developer compensate us?

A Instead of a loss, imagine that the developer built bigger homes, raised prices, and that the community was a huge success. If you needed to sell, would you then feel obligated to send a check to the developer above the purchase price?

The marketplace is a risky place. It is assumed that values rise and fall, but no one guarantees future profits. As well, especially with real estate, short-term ownership by itself is a likely path to losses.

Is your property exactly the same as newer units? What makes it better? What justifies a higher value? Speak with local brokers -- your property may well be worth more than its lower-priced competitors.

Weekly Resource

Ever wonder how search engines work, which is most popular, or how to get listed? A good explanation can be found at the Search Engine Watch site.

Editorial Notice: Content on this page reflects the opinions of Mr. Miller only and not necessarily the views of any publication, organization or Website owner.