The Fifth Amendment provides that, when private property is taken for public use, the owner must be justly compensated, no matter how essential the objective. Excessive environmental regulations often leave property owners unable to use their land at all - except for the possible exception of nominal uses like bird watching or nature photography. The property owner, however, is still forced to shoulder the property tax liabilities and other responsibilities of title ownership. Contrary to critic's claims, property rights legislation does not emasculate the government's ability to keep individuals or businesses from polluting. The Constitution only protects a person's right to make reasonable use of his property.
All landowners are subject to restraints on the use of their land.
For example, nuisance laws prevent owners from using their land in a way that interferes with others. Neither do property rights bills hinder the government's ability to protect public health and safety. As ludicrous as it may appear on its face, an argument advanced against property rights legislation is that the owners of strip clubs and pornography shops could receive just compensation if they are shut down by the government. The Fifth Amendment, to the contrary, never forbids the government from acting to prevent imminent harm to public safety or health, or to diminish what would be considered a public nuisance. Further, property rights bills typically exempt the government from having to pay just compensation when they are acting to protect the public welfare in this manner.