[Vision2020] Risch Says No on Prop 2

[Mark Solomon]

Hi Gary,

As usual, the devil is in the details. The full text of the 
legislation can be found at the Sec'y of State website:

http://www.idsos.idaho.gov/elect/inits/06init08.htm

The catch is the phrase "or enforcement" which, whether intended or 
not, allows for application of any existing zoning code to be 
considered under Prop 2.

Given the duplicitous nature of the entire Proposition trying to 
slide this radical redefinition of takings by disguised as abuse of 
traditional eminent domain powers, I doubt it is unintentional. Go to 
Laird Maxwell's website and watch the pro-Prop 2 flash cartoon and 
see how many times they mention the sentence you've quoted or the 
concepts there embodied. I'll give you a clue: none, nada, zilch.

Then there is the simple truth that land use patterns evolve over 
time as community's change. Locking in today's codes as the perfect 
blueprint for future generations doesn't make sense to me. These are 
local decisions made by locally elected officials who can be 
unelected if they do not reflect the will of the public as I well 
know.

Mark

At 9:20 AM -0700 9/30/06, g. crabtree wrote:
>Mark, what am I missing here?
>
>"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."
>
>If a person acquires property, knowing full well that zoning or 
>other regulations preclude a particular use, he would not be 
>entitled to any form of compensation. Conversely, should a property 
>owner be prevented from utilizing his land in a perfectly legal 
>manner, according to the laws in place at the time he purchased the 
>property, it seems perfectly reasonable that he should be reimbursed 
>for his loss. Are you arguing that government should be able to ride 
>roughshod over property owners at the whim of elected officials? 
>This sounds to me like democracy at its absolute worst.
>
>gc
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Solomon" <msolomon at moscow.com>
>To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 7:29 AM
>Subject: [Vision2020] Risch Says No on Prop 2
>
>>Risch comes out against property-rights initiative
>>
>>By DEAN A. FERGUSON
>>of the Lewiston Tribune
>>9/30/06
>>
>>Idaho's governor said a property-rights initiative will have a
>>"chilling effect" on government and is not needed to protect property
>>owners from eminent domain abuses.
>>
>>"I suspect probably there are people who want to see this chilling
>>effect," Risch told the Lewiston Tribune Friday.
>>
>>Proposition 2 has two components.
>>
>>First, the initiative forbids use of eminent domain to take private
>>property and turn it over to private interests. Second, the
>>initiative requires governments to pay owners when regulations limit
>>a property's value.
>>
>>The eminent domain portion is unneeded, Risch said.
>>
>>"The Legislature already did that," he said, noting House Bill 555
>>passed this year.
>>
>>The bill responded to a controversial 2005 U.S. Supreme Court
>>decision that allowed a Connecticut city to condemn homes and turn
>>the land over to private interests.
>>
>>Proposition 2 merely copies portions of that law.
>>
>>But the second part has sparked outcries from county and city governments.
>>
>>"This new language is going to lead to a lot of litigation," Risch
>>said. "I have serious reservations about that."
>>
>>The initiative reads: "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."
>>
>>Officials worry they will either have to abandon attempts to regulate
>>growth or repeatedly pay big money to landowners who oppose planning
>>and zoning regulations.
>>
>>If zoning regulations forbid putting a junkyard next to your house,
>>the city or county may have to pay the junkyard owner or repeal the
>>ordinance, according to an analysis from the Idaho Association of
>>Counties.
>>
>>So, either the junkyard goes in or the taxpayers pay to keep it out.
>>
>>Opponents of the initiative point to Oregon where Measure 37, a
>>similar initiative, passed in 2004.
>>
>>Despite letting most landowners ignore land-use regulations, the
>>state faces more than 3,000 claims totaling in the neighborhood of
>>$4.5 billion.
>>
>>The Idaho initiative earned a spot on the November ballot after
>>conservative activist Laird Maxwell launched a $330,000 campaign to
>>pay signature gatherers. New York libertarian activist Howard Rich
>>has been identified as the source of much of the Idaho money and
>>initiatives in other states. Similar initiatives are on the ballots
>>in Washington, Montana, Nevada, Arizona and California.
>>
>>=======================================================
>>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
>>=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060930/6218adc4/attachment-0001.htm