[Vision2020] Is Prop 2 Fair?

[Craine Kit]

The Trib severely edited this, so my mother asked me to post this to  
the Vision. Here's the full version of her letter

Kit Craine

-------------------------------
Sponsors of Proposition 2 say it is about fairness, not about money.  
The dictionary defines fair as: "marked by impartiality and honesty;  
free from self interest, prejudice and favoritism." Is Proposition 2  
really fair?

It says taxpayers must pay for regulatory taking—the loss of fair  
market value due to land-use regulations. What about regulatory  
giving? We are told most of the land-use regulations increase the  
market value of property. To be fair, shouldn't those owners give  
their bonus to the taxpayers?

Sometimes, with or without regulations, development decreases the  
use, enjoyment, and market value of surrounding properties. Does  
Proposition 2 compensate those owners? If it were fair, why shouldn't  
people damaged by development be compensated by the developers?

We live in a use it or lose it society. If you had exercised a land- 
use right when it existed, your use would have been grandfathered  
when the regulations changed. If you choose not to exercise a right,  
should you be compensated when it is no longer available?

People have a responsibility to plan for their own welfare. When you  
buy property near an airport the value could either go up because of  
the access or down because of safety restrictions. Should you be  
compensated for guessing wrong?

When regulations decrease the fair market value of a property, the  
owner is compensated by a reduction in his or her property tax.  
Should they also be given a windfall from taxpayers?

Property owners buy insurance for many reasons—weather, fire, title,  
liability, wouldn't it be sensible just to add regulatory taking to  
the list and treat it like any other loss?

Proposition 2 is not fair. Vote NO on it.

Janet Craine