[Vision2020] Reasons why No on Prop 2

[J Ford]

You better talk to the Moscow Mayor - she is in FAVOR of Prop 2 and has said 
in more than one meeting it "would aide City Government, not hinder it."  It 
is her feeling that the chances of a law suit from families whom have had 
their homes taken for development reasons, is slim.

Of course, this is the very same Mayor who was skeptical that people of 
Moscow would be able to deal with a new stop sign on Mt. View and D because 
they just aren't used to it being there.  It was her feeling before the 
signs went up that there would a lot of accidents due the new signage.  We 
all know how accurate THAT prediction was, right?

Just thought I'd point that out.

J  :]





>From: "Bruce and Jean Livingston" <jeanlivingston at turbonet.com>
>To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: [Vision2020] Reasons why No on Prop 2
>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:49:06 -0700
>
>Visionaries,
>
>Below is an op-ed piece that has been submitted to our local papers, 
>opposing Proposition 2.  It was signed by the Mayor and all six City 
>Council members of the City of Moscow.
>
>Bruce Livingston
>
>A Losing Proposition: Vote "No" on Prop 2
>
>
>
>Unanimity in City Hall? In this case, resoundingly yes! Moscow's elected 
>officials may be as diverse as our community, but we are solidly united in 
>our opposition to Proposition 2, the regulatory takings measure that will 
>appear on your November 7 ballot. We urge you to vote "No."
>
>
>
>Proposition 2 is deceptive. Supporters say it is about property rights. 
>They say it prevents government from taking your house for private 
>development. The truth is that Prop 2 supporters must have cut-and-pasted 
>eminent domain provisions from House Bill 455 because those words are 
>already Idaho law, thanks to the Legislature's action earlier this year.
>
>
>
>The other part of Prop 2 dealing with so-called regulatory takings amounts 
>to "bait and switch." It provides that ANY change of government regulation 
>or a refusal to change--a zoning request for example--that decreases the 
>alleged value of an applicant's property opens the door for a claim against 
>government for a "taking" and requires government to compensate the owner 
>for that decrease. Depending on neighbors' satisfaction with the outcome 
>they may also file claims against government for reduction of their 
>property values, creating a domino effect.
>
>
>
>Who pays? We, the taxpayers, do. A select few landowners stand to reap 
>exorbitant returns at the expense of the rest of us.
>
>
>
>This amounts to nothing short of dismantling community planning in Idaho. 
>State and local laws already provide for fair and open public review and 
>protection in land use considerations. The role of government is to 
>determine what is in the long-term interest of the entire community, not 
>the short term gain of a particular land holder. Prop 2 turns this idea on 
>its head.
>
>
>
>Let's say an existing zone allows a variety of conditional uses including 
>confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) but the primary uses are housing 
>and small scale agricultural operations. Suppose property "X" was in that 
>zone located right next to an existing family housing development. Under 
>Prop 2, the owner of property "X" can file a multi-million dollar claim 
>against local government for refusing the "highest and best use" of his 
>property, whether or not he actually ever intended to develop a CAFO there. 
>Awards will be paid out of public coffers (Read: Your tax pocket).
>
>
>
>You say something as incomprehensible as this couldn't make it on the 
>ballot? We wish you were right. A similar measure made it to the ballot in 
>Oregon and was approved by voters there in 2004.
>
>
>
>Since adopting Measure 37, land use claims in Oregon have exceeded $5 
>billion. Repeat: BILLION! This fall, Washington voters face a similar 
>ballot measure (Initiative 933), as do Montana, Arizona, Nevada and 
>California. As Idahoans, we wanted to know who is behind the effort. It 
>isn't OUR friends and neighbors! The disproportionate amount of the funds 
>behind Prop 2--six figures plus--comes from out of state interests.
>
>
>
>Proposition 2 would jettison elected officials' ability to zone properties 
>for orderly development and compatible adjacent uses. With land use 
>determined piecemeal, hostage to individual interests and profit motives, 
>the City's long-range Comprehensive Plan that we're about to revise would 
>become a mere vision of what might have been.
>
>
>
>A united front, remarkable for its political diversity, is solidly against 
>Proposition 2. The alliance includes Governor Jim Risch (candidate for 
>Lieutenant Governor); Larry LaRocco (candidate for Lieutenant Governor); 
>Congressman Butch Otter (candidate for Governor); Jerry Brady (candidate 
>for Governor); and every Legislator and County Commissioner from Latah 
>County.  The Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry and other business 
>interests have been joined by environmental groups in opposition to Prop 2.
>
>
>
>We, your Mayor and City Council, are honored to be in this company and we 
>invite you to join us.
>
>
>
>If you care about what gets built next to your house, if you really want to 
>protect your property values, and if preservation of Idaho's quality of 
>life matters to you, please vote "No" on Proposition 2.
>
>
>
>Printed name, signature & date: 
>__________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>                                                 
>__________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>                                                 
>__________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>                                                 
>__________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>                                                 
>__________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>                                                 
>__________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>This document was prepared without use of City funds, staff, equipment or 
>other public resources.
>
>


>=======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free 
trip! 
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline