To suggest any private landowner ought to be able to do what they want on or with that land is nonsense, writes Grahame Sydney.
Three times within the last two weeks the ODT has hosted comments on the issue of land and ownership rights; while reluctant to lift the megaphone to my own lips, I believe those comments demand a response.
On March 8 one-time Act list MP, now Otago regional councillor, Gerry Eckhoff accused ''environmental groups'' - in this instance the Forest and Bird Society - of the ''legalised theft'' of farmers' rights because the Environment Court upheld the society's application to stop the ''development'' of privately owned land in south Hawea Flat.
Cr Eckhoff claims this ''development'' is no more or less than the landowner's right; further, he insists that by employing the Environment Court to impose an enforcement order preventing more development of the land in question, the ''right to farm'' has been ''stealthily removed from the farming community''.
On March 17, we find Cr Eckhoff beating the same drum, arguing that something he terms ''use rights'' - the ''legal right of use of rural property'' - has been stolen by other parties (like the Environment Court); this, he terms ''the legal taking of private property''.
In Cr Eckhoff's view there is apparently no difference between ownership and use.
Then on March 12, the newspaper highlighted the Dunedin City Council's decision to prosecute a rural landowner for wilfully ignoring district plan conditions.
Three years ago, Twizel businessman Frank Hocken knowingly planted 270,000 Douglas fir trees without resource consent, within the Maungatua landscape conservation area where forestry plantations are prohibited under the Dunedin district plan.
Mr Hocken reportedly claims that if people cannot do what they want on their own land, the council should buy it.
Cr Eckhoff said the same (ODT, 8.3.14): ''If council and Forest and Bird want land to remain in its natural state they should buy those development rights.''
The question thus posed is whether or not the right exists for private landowners to do what they want with their land, and whether or not Cr Eckhoff's ''right to farm'', and ''right to develop'' do in fact exist.
By these terms he presumably means landowners ought to be able to do whatever they wish with and on the land they own, regardless of local body and regional statutory constraints, pleasing themselves alone within their own defined boundaries.
Does either Cr Eckhoff or Mr Hocken have a fair point?
Well, no.
To suggest any private landowner, be they large-holding farmer or small city section ratepayer, ought to be able or is permitted to do what they want on or with that land is nonsense.
Mere ownership does not convey the right to do whatever one pleases and to suggest it should is profoundly misguided.
We are all constrained by statutes, bylaws and regulations, limiting activity on land use, imposed by the democratic processes attached to local body and regional authorities.
Right now I'm not allowed to even plant a tree close to a boundary or light an outdoor rubbish fire without consent, let alone concrete my driveway, and all manner of wider considerations govern what farmers are permitted to do on their land: the routines and practices of most farmers run headlong into bureaucratic oversight almost weekly, as both Messers Eckhoff and Hocken surely know.
The Resource Management Act imposes restrictions and parameters across the nation, while various district schemes and plans reflect the wishes of their local constituencies.
These regulations are in place for reasons which time and collective wisdom have nurtured, and which are open to change and moderation if and when the case can be successfully made for change.
They exist for reasons which may not suit the personal demands of one individual, because considerations of the greater good override those individual preferences.
''Right to farm'' has nothing to do with it. Neither does the presumed ''right to make a living''.
One either works within the law or sets out to change the law by due process, with majority support.
Land ownership brings with it many responsibilities and duties, some of which may well be irritating.
They are required of us because the ''greater good'' and sustainable land management demands it.
With the rapid growth of corporate farming, with its focus on the maximisation of profits, and the sad decline of family, intergenerational farm ownership wherein emotional attachment to that land and concern for its future sustainability dictated so much decision-making, it is all the more important we all never forget that ''ownership'' is a myth, or a misnomer at best: we are all merely temporary occupants, transitory dwellers, and subject to nature's far greater, more potent whims and dictates.
How much better would our legacy to future generations be if we all thought of our brief period of occupancy as caretaking, rather than ownership.
Just as no citizen can do exactly as he or she pleases in society regardless of harm to others, neither can occupants of the land do anything they wish, mindless of the long-term consequences.
Many wish it were otherwise, and some try.
Fortunately there are wiser heads prevailing.
Grahame Sydney lives in the Cambrian valley, Central Otago.
