<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Prop 2</title></head><body>
<div>Nils,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Here's the pertinent language from the initiative. As you can
see, enforcement of any zoning law would qualify for taxpayer
compensation if the applicant didn't get everything they wanted. In
other words, all land use laws are out the window.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Mark</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><font face="Lucida Grande" size="+1" color="#000000">(5) 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, and shall not be required to
first submit a land use application to remove, modify, vary, or
otherwise alter the application of the land use law as a prerequisite
to demanding or receiving just compensation under subsection (9) of
this section.</font></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 3:42 PM -0700 8/10/06, Nils Peterson wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Mark<br>
<br>
If Tom Ivie's fence is still regulated (thanks Tom for asking for a
specific<br>
example), how about Gene Thompson's rezone or subsequent plat, or
CUP?<br>
<br>
What about Rick Bebee putting a residential uses in the grain elevator
with<br>
its current industrial zoning?<br>
<br>
<br>
On 8/10/06 3:22 PM, "mark solomon> wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
> Building codes are specifically exempted from the provisions of
Prop<br>
> 2. It is the land use decision (as in comprehensive planning,
zoning,<br>
> subdivision ordinances, etc) that it attacks.<br>
><br>
> Mark<br>
><br>
> (6) Subsection (5) of this section shall not apply to land use
laws:<br>
><br>
> (a) Limiting or prohibiting a use
or division of real property<br>
> for the protection of public health and safety, such as fire
and<br>
> building codes, health and sanitation regulations, traffic
control,<br>
> liquor controls solid or hazardous waste regulations, and
pollution<br>
> control regulations;<br>
><br>
> (b) Limiting or prohibiting a use
or division of real property<br>
> commonly and historically recognized as a public nuisance
under<br>
> common law;<br>
><br>
> (c) Required by federal law;<br>
><br>
> (d) Limiting or prohibiting the use
or division of a property for<br>
> the purpose of selling pornography or performing nude
dancing,<br>
> provided such land use laws are consistent with the Idaho and
United<br>
> States Constitutions; or<br>
><br>
> (e) Were enacted before the
effective date of this Section.<br>
><br>
> (f) That do not directly regulate
an owner's land.<br>
><br>
><br>
> At 2:45 PM -0700 8/10/06, Tom Ivie wrote:<br>
>> Just so I understand...If Prop 2 were to pass and I applied
for a<br>
>> building permit to put up..lets say a fence. But the
fence did not<br>
>> meet the code as far as distance to the street, heighth,
etc. Would<br>
>> I be able to make a claim against the city if they rejected
my<br>
>> permit application? How might this apply to development
covenents?<br>
>> Or would it?<br>
>></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>