Ann Louise Strong

Restitution of fishing rights to Maori: representation, social justice and community development

For a quarter of a century, the government of New Zealand has been engaged in a process of restitution of property to Maori. Although land is the main object of Maori claims for restitution, rights to fisheries are also important. The nature of these rights is being influenced by findings of the Waitangi Tribunal and determined by legislation and judicial decisions. Both the definition of customary rights of Maori and the allocation of commercial fishing assets between urban Maori and members of traditional tribes present difficult questions not fully resolved. One principle that does appear to be settled is that full restitution is not feasible. Instead, both government and Maori seek settlements that will provide a firm foundation for community and economic development.

Restitution of Land to New Zealand Maori: The Role of Social Structure

or twenty-five years the government of New Zealand has been engaged in a process of restitution of property to Maori. The first version of the restitution law was passed in 1975; it was very limited in scope and applicable only to grievances incurred post-1975. In 1985, the law was amended to extend coverage back to 1840, thus enabling a multitude of tribes and individuals to file claims. The law provided for creation of a special court, the Waitangi Tribunal, to hear claims, to make findings, and to make recommendations to the government for settling claims found to be valid. Over 700 claims have been filed. Those being given priority are the historic claims of tribes for alienated property, primarily land, but also including fishing rights. This article describes settlements of historic tribal claims to land achieved

Local programs in the United States for preventing the destruction of trees on private land

Abstract Adoption of municipal ordinances regulating the removal of trees on private property is a recent phenomenon in the U.S.A. Some ordinances regulate the removal of ordinary trees above a specified size in designated areas. Others regulate the removal of trees that are special because of their age, unusual size, beauty, historic association, or because they are part of an environmentally endangered natural forest community. Most programs suffer from limited coverage, exempting major land uses, small and even medium size trees. Permit approval rates are high, but many permits are granted only after plans have been improved. There have been few court tests. Current regulatory programs do not take into account the special characteristics of a municipalitys topography, existing mature stands, and patterns of buildings and open space. Regulations should be preceded by landscape analysis and a municipal landscape plan for retaining trees and planting new ones in municipal-scale patterns that will be most effective in attaining energy, environmental, and scenic goals. The municipal landscape plan could be translated into regulations through an overlay to the zoning map. Effective implemention would require incentives and education in addition to enforcement of the regulations. Research is needed to provide standards for determining amounts, locations, and nature of plantings to achieve desired microclimate moderation, noise attenuation, and scenic benefits.

Managing publicly owned land in Canberra: Rural to urban change of use

All land in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is government owned. Prior to 1989, when the ACT became self-governing, the government developed land for urban use and auctioned leases for parcels of land for specified uses. Since then, leases for raw land have been auctioned for private development, to be completed within a specified time. A case study of a development where the ACT Government aimed to increase urban densities shows that the result was a reduction in quality. In addition, the financial returns to the ACT Government were much lower than if it had undertaken the development itself.

Easements as a development control in the United States

Abstract During the 1960s and 1970s, people in the United States became more and more concerned about the loss of valuable natural and cultural resource sites to urban development. Zoning often has proved insufficient protection against land conversion. Easements have become increasingly popular as a means of protecting critical ecosystems, prime farmland, spectacular scenery, and historic landmarks. Many local and state governments and some federal agencies now have on-going programs for the purchase of easements. Private conservation organizations also acquire easements, but more frequently through the solicitation of gifts than through purchase. Because easements permanently prohibit or inhibit development, they reduce the value of land. Their cost, if they are purchased, is the difference between the value of the land before their acquisition and its value for uses allowed under the easement. Federal tax policy has fostered gifts of easements to approved organizations by allowing land-owners to deduct from their income the value of such gifts. This paper describes the use of, and experience with, easements by governments and private groups. Although easements have achieved widespread acceptance as a land-use control which is both effective and fair, substantial expansion of their use in the United States is likely to be contingent on improvement in the domestic economy.

Assessing betterment under a public premium leasehold system: principles and practice in Canberra

This article sets forth principles for assessing betterment under a public premium leasehold system of land tenure. Canberra, Australia, is employed as a case study. Recovery of the betterment which results as the city grows has been an important objective of public land ownership in Canberra. Up-front premiums and betterment charges replaced land rents in 1970. Betterment charges are applicable when permission to change land use is granted and there is an increase in the value of the lease. Different definitions used over time have failed to measure betterment correctly. A correct definition is derived, and it is argued that a 100% charge should be levied to maintain the governments ownership of development rights. Such a charge would not stifle redevelopment but would remove the subsidy it currently receives.

Transfer of Development Rights to Protect Water Resources

Abstract Public agencies face a dilemma when assessing whether to protect land-use related resources such as beaches, hillsides, farmland, historic structures, or water. If development is not regulated, then it may occur at a level that is harmful to the resource; but if development is curtailed or banned, the regulation may be illegal or unjust to the resource owner. One path out of this dilemma is to regulate the development while allowing the resource owner to transfer development rights (TDR). This option, the TDR for the purpose of pro-tecting water resources, is the focus of this article. The first section of the article describes TDRs and provides

Buying Farmland Development Rights: The Chester County Program

Abstract In October 1989, Edward Thompson, Jr. skillfully commented on the use of development rights to protect farmland. (See Note 1.) Thompson reported that “seven states and a handful of innovative counties have preserved more than 129 thousand acres of farmland using purchase of development rights.” Pennsylvania was among those states, having adopted a program authorizing expenditure of

INCORPORATING VEGETATION VALUES IN THE COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN

100 million. (See PA. STAT. ANN. tit. 3, sec. 914. 1, 1988.) This article reflects upon Thompsons recommendations and caveats; summarizes how Chester County, Pennsylvania, a county prototypical in its conflict between urbanization and farming, has responded to the state initiative; and focuses on the issues raised by Chester Countys initiation of its own

Land as a Public Good

50 million open space program to preserve farmland, park sites, historic sites, and conservation areas.