Karen Bradshaw

Land Development Anticommons

Public opposition often derails socially desirable land development projects. Existing solutions to overcome opposition — such as contracting between developers and opponents, anti-opposition legislation, and insurance to protect diminution of home values — focus on stakeholders living in the community in which the development is proposed. To test the wisdom of this narrow focus on community residents, this article provides a case study of Nestle, the largest food and beverage manufacturer in the world, proposing a water bottling plant in small McCloud, California. Despite approval by the local government and a majority of residents, Nestle moved elsewhere after six years of fierce opposition fueled by members of neighboring communities, competing businesses, interest groups, and national environmental groups, an account that is inexplicable when viewed through traditional accounts of development opposition. This article argues that opposition to land development projects is comprised of a diverse set of stakeholder groups. Interest groups, businesses, and ideological organizations play a key, but previously-unexplored, role in the process. Public opposition is better framed as land development anticommons, in which many sources of opposition can veto a proposed development project but none can issue a definitive approval. The land development anticommons framework suggests that a two-part solution of private contracting and anti-opposition legislation provides the best balance between incorporating stakeholder considerations and facilitating some forms of socially-beneficial development.