[Vision2020] Prop 2

[Mark Solomon]

Nils,

Here's the pertinent language from the initiative. As you can see, 
enforcement of any zoning law would qualify for taxpayer compensation 
if the applicant didn't get everything they wanted. In other words, 
all land use laws are out the window.

Mark

(5) If an owner's ability to use, possess, sell, or divide private 
real property is limited or prohibited by the enactment or 
enforcement of any land use law after the date of acquisition by the 
owner of the property in a manner that reduces the fair market value 
of the property, the owner shall be entitled to just compensation, 
and shall not be required to first submit a land use application to 
remove, modify, vary, or otherwise alter the application of the land 
use law as a prerequisite to demanding or receiving just compensation 
under subsection (9) of this section.

At 3:42 PM -0700 8/10/06, Nils Peterson wrote:
>Mark
>
>If Tom Ivie's fence is still regulated (thanks Tom for asking for a specific
>example), how about Gene Thompson's rezone or subsequent plat, or CUP?
>
>What about Rick Bebee putting a residential uses in the grain elevator with
>its current industrial zoning?
>
>
>On 8/10/06 3:22 PM, "mark solomon> wrote:
>
>>
>>  Building codes are specifically exempted from the provisions of Prop
>>  2. It is the land use decision (as in comprehensive planning, zoning,
>>  subdivision ordinances, etc) that it attacks.
>>
>>  Mark
>>
>>  (6) Subsection (5) of this section shall not apply to land use laws:
>>
>>       (a) Limiting or prohibiting a use or division of real property
>>  for the protection of public health and safety, such as fire and
>>  building codes, health and sanitation regulations, traffic control,
>>  liquor controls solid or hazardous waste regulations, and pollution
>>  control regulations;
>>
>>       (b) Limiting or prohibiting a use or division of real property
>>  commonly and historically recognized as a public nuisance under
>>  common law;
>>
>>       (c) Required by federal law;
>>
>>       (d) Limiting or prohibiting the use or division of a property for
>>  the purpose of selling pornography or performing nude dancing,
>>  provided such land use laws are consistent with the Idaho and United
>>  States Constitutions; or
>>
>>       (e) Were enacted before the effective date of this Section.
>>
>>       (f) That do not directly regulate an owner's land.
>>
>>
>>  At 2:45 PM -0700 8/10/06, Tom Ivie wrote:
>>>  Just so I understand...If Prop 2 were to pass and I applied for a
>>>  building permit to put up..lets say a fence.  But the fence did not
>>>  meet the code as far as distance to the street, heighth, etc.  Would
>>>  I be able to make a claim against the city if they rejected my
>>>  permit application?  How might this apply to development covenents?
>>>  Or would it?
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060810/df08ae55/attachment.htm