Selling and Developing Government Land

Last year the Jamaican government announced that it was going to sell 3,000 acres of property in Font Hill. The property is proposed to be used for the development of a large resort hotel. The land has many environmental features from beaches to agricultural lands to a mangrove forest. The land is also the habitat for wildlife ranging from the American alligator to the West Indian Whistling Duck to migratory birds. This sale has been strongly opposed by environmental lobbyists in Jamaica. These lobbyists are concerned about what will happen to the wildlife that are on the property and the destruction of natural resources. The government officials that support the development of Font Hill believe that the development will create jobs and help the economy. Lobbyists argue that the development may help the economy, but at what risk to an area of biodiversity?

Also in Jamaica, the Urban Development Corporation, a government agency, proposed to develop Winnifred Beach and deny the public access to the beach. The Corporation proposed to put cottages and villas on the beach. The public has opposed the development of the beach arguing that it will degrade the environment of the beach by negatively impacting species habitats and negatively impacting the coral reefs. The public has also argued that the beach has been used by the public for years and therefore the beach should remain open for public access.

Meanwhile, according to Dennis Kravitz, an AP business writer, in the United States in May, 2011, the Obama administration asked Congress to sell off 12,000 government owned properties claiming that they were under underutilized or were no longer needed. The Obama Administration says that taking the properties out of the government’s hands would save the government about $15 billion over a three year period. The United States government owns about 1 million pieces of property and pays about $20 billion a year to operate and maintain the properties. These talks to sell government owned properties came at a time when the government was trying to cut the deficit. The government proposed that the money that would be saved by selling the properties would be used 60% to pay the deficit and 40% to cover the costs to run government facilities. Selling these properties may allow for private entities to purchase and develop the properties causing environmental harms. There are environmental regulations that new developments may be subject to but should the government sell lands that have the potential for development causing environmental harms or does the economic benefit that the government will receive outweigh the potential environmental harms?

Should governments allow government owned lands to be privatized? It seems like every time the sale of government land or privatization of land has come up it almost always is proposed for an economic benefit. In Jamaica government owned property is being sold to develop a hotel to create jobs and a beach is being privatized to bring tourists to stay at cottages and villas on the beach. While in the United States, government land is being proposed to be sold to help pay off the government’s debt. While government economic interests are important I can’t help but wonder how privatization of these lands will impact the environment. Are these governments really taking into consideration the economic environmental benefits that these lands provide now?

-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern