CZM Class Discussion

I want to open our further discussion of Coastal Zone Management with a debate - on MONDAY. You will be divided into two groups and are expected to look into the arguments for the side to which you have been assigned. Come prepared to present and defend those views. However, you also need to come prepared to refute the points of the "other side". You are free to get together to discuss your group "strategy"; you can also use email. In this case, I don't mind a liberal use of the web (including the history and logic of the US Coastal Zone Management process).
Not so very long ago (1986), in a land not so far away (South Carolina) - a landmark case arose in the state courts that changed the face of Coastal Zone Management forever. The case ultimately was decided in the US Supreme Court. In short, a gentleman by the name of David Lucas was prohibited from placing single-family dwellings on two lots he had purchased for a cost of ca. one million dollars. For some of the details, go to:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-453.ZS.html

Alternately, just type "Lucas v south carolina" into Google or Lycos and follow up yourself.
The US Supreme Court ultimately decided that the actions of the SC CZM Board constituted a "legal taking" of Lucas' land in much the same way as a state might force an owner to sell a piece of property where a public road was to be built. Thus, the owner had to be reimbursed for his losses plus a reasonable amount to offset the costs of his unsuccessful efforts to develop the property. For obvious reasons, some of which are outlined on the web, there is widespread disagreement on the outcome of this case. The immediate result was a hoard of similar suits by every developer who had been denied permission to develop a property.

I have judiciously divided you up into two groups. Group one consists of Josh, Brandi, Meredith, Lowell, Gavin, Michael and Ali. You are to develop an argument favoring the rights of the property owner in such instances "to do whatever he/she damned well pleases with a piece of property. In short, "I paid good money for the land and the government has no business telling me what a taxpayer can and can't do, so long as it doesn't break morally based laws that are well established. The entire CZM process is just one more infringement on one of the most sacred principles in the US Constitution... land ownership.

The other group consists of Sara, Andrew, Sarah, John, Jon and Becky. You are charged with defending CZM's right, nay their responsibility of protect the environment as part of the public good. In short, the commons of the American coastal zone must be defended equally aggressively against the greedy and the stupid.
We will spend a little under half of the class in a mock debate. Afterward, we will focus on how an appropriate balance should be struck, using either Lucas v SC or any other example you might wish to choose.