[Vision2020] corrected link: takings initiative

[Mark Solomon]

http://www.sos.idaho.gov/ELECT/INITS/06init08.htm

Jeff,

There is a huge difference between eminent domain as embodied in the 
5th Article of the US Constitution and the conservative political 
agenda to extend that to "regulatory takings". We can and should 
engage in that dialogue as those same out-of-state conservative 
interests funnelled $337,500 into Idaho to place a very dangerous 
initiative on the November ballot.

On its face, it purports to tighten the eminent domain loophole 
opened last year by the US Supreme Court in the case of Kelso v New 
London, CT in which the court ruled that private property could be 
taken for the purposes of economic development as determined by the 
local government. Fine and good as far as that goes, even though the 
ID legislature already tightened up our laws in this last session.

The danger is the second sentence in the proposed constitutional 
amendment that would require cash compensation for anyone claiming a 
supposed "regulatory taking" under Idaho's land use laws. The usual 
actions that conservatives  cite as cases where they should be 
compensated are land use and environmental laws. Need a water quality 
permit to discharge pollution into a stream and don't like the 
requirements because they will cost you money to install adequate 
controls? Claim a "regulatory taking" and, under this initiative, get 
the taxpayer to pay for your pollution. Want to build a hog farm but 
the zoning says residential only? Claim a "regulatory taking" and get 
the taxpayer to pay you for your "lost earnings". Are you a big 
timber company and have been unhappy with having to leave some trees 
by streams under the regulation of the Forest Practices Act? Claim a 
regulatory taking and get the taxpayer to pay for the tree stumpage. 
The list goes on literally forever.

The initiative as filed 
(http://www.sos.idaho.gov/ELECT/INITS/06init08.htm ) focuses on land 
use laws: ie: planning and zoning. The likely result if the 
initiative is passed and found constitutional (there is the question 
of whether it is constitutional as initiatives are restricted to one 
issue only) is either bankruptcy of local government or the 
elimination of land use laws: a dream of many conservative political 
activists.

I'll point out that Idaho tackled this issue a decade ago and created 
a public review process for all actions that some would claim as a 
"regulatory taking". We are being used in a very deceptive manner by 
out of state conservatives to advance an extremely radical agenda.

More later.


Mark



At 7:10 PM -0700 7/1/06, Jeff Harkins wrote:
>Mark,
>
>Very useful information.  I will respond to various issues  over the 
>next few weeks.  I will begin with this observation.
>
>>The Moscow-Pullman Airport is about to undergo a renovation that 
>>will cost about $50,000,000 over the next 4 years.  The expectation 
>>of spending that amount or more does not seem out of line to deal 
>>with a possible water distribution problem that could benefit tens 
>>of thousands of people and provide for the economic growth we will 
>>require to sustain our prosperity here in the Palouse.
>>
>>I am also pleased that in your list of conditions for siting a 
>>reservoir that you include a requirement that any property owners 
>>be compensated in a free-market type of exchange.  I wish that a 
>>similar concern had been used when the pressure to impose a water 
>>management subzone was invoked on many of us landowners without any 
>>proposed compensation for that property right taking.
>>
>>In any case, I look forward to a continued dialogue on the water 
>>issue.  I will do my best to engage some appropriately credentialed 
>>water geologists and other related scientists to help us understand 
>>the more critical elements of this issue.
>
>>Again thanks for the response.