Michael Pattinson ("At last, property rights outrage," July 10) would like you to believe the Supreme Court decision to allow condemnation of property is all about the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Pattinson's commentary is a thinly veiled attempt to inflame the public with misinformation and exaggerated claims of government abuse on behalf this law. It also appears timed to herald Congressman Richard Pombo's hearings on the Endangered Species Act. These hearings, if anything like the last round, will be orchestrated to put the act in the worst possible light.

Mr. Pattinson's argument is off-base from the start. The Supreme Court ruling is about redevelopment. In the case of the Connecticut decision, the court has determined that the government can condemn property (including occupied property) to make way for a new resort. This is nearly universally seen as a bad decision. People are more understanding if land must be condemned for a new water project, freeway or other public works.

People see this latest decision as an opportunity for car dealers and resort developers to convince city planners that their tax-generating (and pocket-lining) project is really for the public benefit.

The Endangered Species Act is about preserving our diverse natural heritage. Year after year, polls have shown that the public at large agrees that our natural heritage is an important public asset. The act restricts future activities only where certain endangered species occur (animals and plants are treated differently). Often only a small fragment of a once much-broader range is all that remains to work with. The Endangered Species Act may make it more complicated to use certain properties to their fullest, but, unlike the Connecticut case, it is not going to take existing homes.

Mr. Pattinson paints a picture of harsh government regulation costing the building industry here hundreds of millions of dollars, virtually stopping development in places like Murrieta, Temecula, San Diego, Carlsbad and other cities where "property rights have been shut down." The cost to you and me —— rocketing housing prices, he writes. This simply is not the case. There are more endangered species in Southern California than anywhere else in the continental United States. Has our economy come to a screeching halt? Development has hardly stopped. If anything, it appears to be accelerating.

A record number of housing permits were issued in California last year, many of them right here. A lot of those houses and shopping centers you see from the freeway while crawling in ever-increasing traffic here in San Diego and Riverside counties were endangered species' habitat not all that long ago. If anything, California has prospered alongside the Endangered Species Act, a clear demonstration that economic development and the act can coexist.

Clearly, the Endangered Species Act has had a much more limited impact on private development here than Mr. Pattinson would have you believe. If there is outrage, it should be against those who would needlessly vilify one of the world's most noble laws.

Oceanside resident Fred Roberts is the rare plant coordinator for the San Diego chapter of the California Native Plant Society.