[Vision2020] Risch Says No on Prop 2

[g. crabtree]

Re: [Vision2020] Risch Says No on Prop 2Mark, thank you for your reply. It seems to me that your first argument

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.

...is specious. If dozens of property owners come forward and claim that they must be compensated for their loses because they can't build coal fired power plants or nuclear waste repositories on their improperly zoned land, I am quite certain that the courts will "consider" it, chuckle, and dismiss the claims out of hand. The idea that I would/could/should sue because I can't build a thirty story office tower on my R-1 residential lot is laughable. To attribute a similar sense of humor to the rest of the citizens of our state does them a serious disservice. 

Your second...

"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."

... and I suspect more telling concern, is where I see Prop 2 actually being a very good thing. If government decides to enact an arbitrary change in land use policy which is going to negatively impact a citizens property values, the state should reimburse him for his loss. If a matter is important enough to burden private citizens it should be important enough to pay for. If it were determined in the future that Moscow Mtn. should be a coddling moth preserve and all residential uses be disallowed, I feel sure that I know at least one person who would very much hope to be compensated. I, for one, hope very much that he would be.

Lastly, there's the concept that was expressed in a quote I saw (and admired) recently here on the V which I am sure I am about to mangle horribly... "Man, this is going to be a train wreck. Lets see how it turns out!" ...What we have now isn't all that peachy. Lets try something different and see how that goes.

gc
 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Solomon 
  To: g. crabtree ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:38 AM
  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/20060930/1c207028/attachment.htm