[Vision2020] Prop 2 article

[Bruce and Jean Livingston]

Subject: Spokesman Review re Prop 2.  10/22/06


Sunday, October 22, 2006

ELECTION '06

Land-use limits could be undercut

Prop 2 reflects growth pains



Betsy Z. Russell 
Staff writer
October 22, 2006

If there's one thing at the heart of every controversy about the changing
nature of North Idaho in the past decade, it's growth.

More people, more homes and more businesses mean more cars on the roads,
more kids in school, pressure on water and sewer systems, rising public
costs that drive up property taxes and clashes between the new and the old.

Now, an initiative on the November ballot would change how Idaho communities
approach growth. Proposition 2 would require local governments to pay
landowners for lost potential value whenever any land-use regulation
prevents them from fully developing their property to its "highest and best
use."

Boise land-use attorney Heather Cunningham, an advocate of the measure,
said, "Government has, in my view, gone too far in imposing regulations on
private landowners." If a community wants to keep open space or limit
housing density to benefit everyone, she said, "Why shouldn't the public be
willing to pay for it, if it's a public benefit?"

Planners, government officials, smart-growth advocates and even Realtors and
many developers across the state are against the measure.

"It just changes everything," said Rand Wichman, who was Kootenai County's
planning director for six years, and now works as a planning consultant for
private developers. "Instead of worrying about what are the traffic impacts,
does this project make sense for the community, what is the appropriate
density and that kind of thing, you end up with a whole different set of
things to consider."

Kootenai County's budget is just over $60 million, Wichman said, so it could
never afford to pay a claim for, say, denying a $150 million luxury
subdivision. "That's just not going to happen," he said. "It really does
take conventional planning and just throw it right out the window."

That's just fine with Marvin Erickson, who has waged an unsuccessful battle
for years to develop a subdivision on local icon Canfield Mountain, where
the zig-zag shaped road to his house is visible across the county on the
otherwise wooded hillside.

"I think it's been a long time coming," Erickson said. "This new law would
put a monkey wrench in their actions to thwart and subvert my rights."

Cunningham said government would have a "free pass" to avoid big payments to
thwarted developers. "Government has 90 days to remove the regulation or pay
the claim," she said. "They can remove the regulation and walk away from
it."

But the Idaho initiative, unlike Oregon's Measure 37 on which it was
modeled, doesn't let local government waive the land-use rule just for that
one landowner. The regulation would have to be repealed permanently, for
everyone.

If Idaho began repealing its land-use rules in a time of significant growth,
the result would be "pretty much chaos," said Jerry Mason, attorney for the
Association of Idaho Cities and for 10 individual Idaho cities. "Those
regulations are just part of everyday life today," he said. "They're how the
built community happens.

"Roads are of sufficient width and sufficient quality that taxpayers can
afford to maintain them. Water systems provide us clean drinking water. S We
have parks, we have community facilities, we have traffic signals ­ all
these things come about through development regulations," Mason said.
"Without that, it would be a very chaotic world."

Ken Harward, executive director of the association of cities, said, "Cities
would no longer have an ability to control their destiny. S Good city
planning is for the purpose of having a good, peaceful co-existence of all
citizens and neighbors, and this really threatens that."

Jon Barrett, executive director of Idaho Smart Growth, works in Boise but
traveled to North Idaho over the summer to conduct workshops on zoning code
reform. He found people upset about growth and its impacts on their property
taxes.

"If our development is happening in an inefficient, high-cost kind of way,
that's contributing to increased property taxes," he said.

Barrett gave the example of a neighborhood where 500 feet of roadway serves
10 families, versus a more sprawling one where the lots and homes are laid
out so that the same road serves only four families. The road still costs
the same amount either way, but it costs each family more under the second
scenario.

"Smart growth" approaches ­ accomplished through land-use regulations ­ can
allow basic services to be provided at lower cost, Barrett said.

Proposition 2 backers say that's no reason to allow government to impact
property values. "Under current law right now, governments have the power to
regulate your property, reduce its value, and not pay you for your loss,"
said Laird Maxwell, head of "This House is My Home," the group pushing the
initiative. "That is a bad hammer that they have in their planning toolbox,
and Proposition 2 takes that hammer away from them."

Barrett said the measure creates uncertainty about how neighborhoods and
communities will develop in the future, especially if land-use rules could
be repealed by governments seeking to avoid huge payments they can't afford.
Then developers would have free rein, he said. "They can develop what they
want wherever they want, regardless of how it affects the community."

The election is Nov. 7.

Related stories:  This article is about the position of candidates for office on Prop 2.  It should be noted that all candidates  for the legislature or county commissioner in Latah County oppose it.

Elections - Idaho
Where they stand

Most major candidates, whether Republican or Democrat, say Proposition 2 on
the Nov. 7 ballot would be bad for Idaho.

Among the four candidates for governor, both Republican Butch Otter and
Democrat Jerry Brady oppose Proposition 2. Libertarian Ted Dunlap and
Constitution Party candidate Marvin "Pro-Life" Richardson support it.

Both Republican Jim Risch and Democrat Larry LaRocco, who are running for
lieutenant governor, oppose Proposition 2.

Both Republican Attorney General Lawrence Wasden and his Democratic
challenger, Bob Wallace, oppose Proposition 2.

In Legislative Districts 4 and 5, which include Kootenai County, all
candidates for the House and Senate oppose Proposition 2, except for
Constitution Party candidate Ray Writz and Independent candidate Jeremy
Boggess, who are both vying for the Dist. 4 Senate seat.

In District 5, Democrat Lyndon Harriman hasn't yet taken a stance. Both
Republican Todd Tondee and independent Tom Macy, who are in the race for a
Kootenai County Commission seat, oppose Proposition 2.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061022/29aceaa9/attachment.htm