PRIVATE EFFORTS, PUBLIC BENEFITS.(ISSUES & INSIGHTS)(EDITORIALS)

The media portray it as a happy trend: voters gladly raising their taxes to preserve more green space. But look at it this way and it's not so happy: People are using the power of the ballot to vote money out of their neighbors' pockets.

A look at the news across the country reveals the widespread practice of governments buying green space. USA Today says the trend is shifting from statewide initiatives to local referendums. In some spots, residents are votingto hike property taxes so cities and counties can buy -- and presumably preserve -- open space.

We admit that green space can be a welcome break from the grittiness of urban cityscape and the sameness of the suburban landscape. Stunning architecture and functioning memorials to human achievement can often be betterappreciated with a backdrop of green. Who doesn't cherish New York's Central Park, Boston Common or Washington's Mall?

Most parks have been paid for with taxpayers' dollars, the ancient method for providing for the "public interest." We should have progressed beyond the use of coercion to provide open space by now, though. There is an alternative.

Private conservation in America can be traced to Thomas Jefferson, who, withhis own money, bought the Natural Bridge in his home state of Virginia. Jefferson vowed the bridge would never "be injured, defaced or masked from public view." His pledge has allowed more than two centuries of Americans to ...