[Vision2020] Proposition 2 Warning -- Lewiston City Attorney

[Bruce and Jean Livingston]

>From the Lewiston Morning Tribune, Aug. 10, 2006, page 5C:

City lawyer warns against Proposition 2


If Proposition 2 passes in November, Lewiston residents could have to pay someone every time a vote is taken on a land use issue, Assistant City Attorney Jamie Shropshire said. 

If a landowner was denied the right to open an auto body shop between two houses, the city would have to pay him. 

But if the body shop was approved, the owner of the house next door could make a claim for lost value and win, Shropshire told the Lewiston Planning and Zoning Commission Wednesday night. 

All it takes is the perception the value of a piece of property has been altered, whether it's the person wanting a new use or the neighbor next door, she said. 

"We pay one side or the other. It doesn't matter. ... It's our opinion this would destroy planning and zoning law in the state of Idaho." 

A similar law in Oregon has resulted in $4 billion in claims from one side or the other, she said. 

Supporters of the initiative are calling it a protection against eminent domain, which is a government's right to forcibly purchase property. 

Idaho already has protections in place for that, she said. 

"It's not protection of property right at all. In fact, it's the opposite." 

The furor over property rights has been fueled by a widely publicized Connecticut case in which courts said homes could be forcibly purchased to provide land for private development. 

It's New Yorkers who are supporting the Idaho initiative, Shropshire said. 

Idaho taxpayers will be the ultimate losers if it passes, she said. 



What analysis of Proposition 2 have Moscow and Latah County officals made?

Bruce Livingston


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060810/6e9cb0e2/attachment.htm