[Vision2020] Risch Says No on Prop 2

[Tom Hansen]

http://www.latahelection2006.com/Prop_2.htm

 

Tom Hansen

Vandalville, Idaho

 

*********************************************

The right choice for the future of Latah County.

Linda Pike for County Commissioner

For details, go to http://www.LindaPike.com

*********************************************

  

  _____  

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Mark Solomon
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:38 AM
To: g. crabtree; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Risch Says No on Prop 2

 

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/20060930/1abf4716/attachment.htm