The House of Representatives recently passed an ESA reform bill that promises to give property owners 100 percent direct compensation for their lost rights. Incredibly, Senator Crapo's bill seeks to undo this. For property rights advocates, CRESA snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

Typically, 'good-faith negotiations' do not portray the buyer holding a gun to the seller's head. These negotiations have been tinged with bad-faith since April, when the City told property owners they had to be out of their homes by New Year's Eve. Mr. Green can pretend he's dealing in good faith, but he's really playing with a corked bat.

One man's blight is another man's castle. Without proper restrictions and well-defined parameters, governments will exploit the blight loophole and continue to abuse eminent domain power.

Property owners should not be punished for being good environmental stewards, yet that is exactly what the ESA does.

They're generally a bad thing, if you're a property owner. You're basically a tenant on your own property.

While the Endangered Species Act has failed miserably at saving rare plants and animals, it has excelled in making life miserable for many in the human population.

Draconian regulations on property owners don't attract business. Businesses want the right to do what they want with their properties.

Landowners who earn credits would have a vested interest in increasing the value of their credits. The value can be increased by either more stringent regulation or reduced species populations that require a reduction in the number of credits available.