<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [Vision2020] Risch Says No on Prop 2</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE type=text/css>BLOCKQUOTE {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
DL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
UL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
OL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
LI {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mark, thank you for your reply. It seems to me that
your first argument</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial Narrow" size=2><FONT face=Arial>...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.</FONT> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Your second...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>"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."</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>...</FONT> 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>gc</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG> </STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=msolomon@moscow.com href="mailto:msolomon@moscow.com">Mark
Solomon</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=jampot@adelphia.net
href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g. crabtree</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:38
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Risch Says No
on Prop 2</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hi Gary,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>As usual, the devil is in the details. The full text of the legislation
can be found at the Sec'y of State website:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Grande" color=#000000 size=+1><A
href="http://www.idsos.idaho.gov/elect/inits/06init08.htm">http://www.idsos.idaho.gov/elect/inits/06init08.htm</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Mark</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>At 9:20 AM -0700 9/30/06, g. crabtree wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">Mark, what am I missing here?<BR><BR>"If an
owner's ability to use, possess, sell,<BR>or divide private real property is
limited or prohibited by the<BR>enactment or enforcement of any land-use law
after the date of<BR>acquisition by the owner of the property in a manner
that reduces the<BR>fair-market value of the property, the owner shall be
entitled to<BR>just compensation."<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>gc<BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message
----- From: "Mark Solomon" <msolomon@moscow.com><BR>To:
<vision2020@moscow.com><BR>Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 7:29
AM<BR>Subject: [Vision2020] Risch Says No on Prop 2<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">Risch comes out against property-rights
initiative<BR><BR>By DEAN A. FERGUSON<BR>of the Lewiston
Tribune<BR>9/30/06<BR><BR>Idaho's governor said a property-rights
initiative will have a<BR>"chilling effect" on government and is not
needed to protect property<BR>owners from eminent domain abuses.<BR><BR>"I
suspect probably there are people who want to see this
chilling<BR>effect," Risch told the Lewiston Tribune
Friday.<BR><BR>Proposition 2 has two components.<BR><BR>First, the
initiative forbids use of eminent domain to take private<BR>property and
turn it over to private interests. Second, the<BR>initiative requires
governments to pay owners when regulations limit<BR>a property's
value.<BR><BR>The eminent domain portion is unneeded, Risch
said.<BR><BR>"The Legislature already did that," he said, noting House
Bill 555<BR>passed this year.<BR><BR>The bill responded to a controversial
2005 U.S. Supreme Court<BR>decision that allowed a Connecticut city to
condemn homes and turn<BR>the land over to private
interests.<BR><BR>Proposition 2 merely copies portions of that
law.<BR><BR>But the second part has sparked outcries from county and city
governments.<BR><BR>"This new language is going to lead to a lot of
litigation," Risch<BR>said. "I have serious reservations about
that."<BR><BR>The initiative reads: "If an owner's ability to use,
possess, sell,<BR>or divide private real property is limited or prohibited
by the<BR>enactment or enforcement of any land-use law after the date
of<BR>acquisition by the owner of the property in a manner that reduces
the<BR>fair-market value of the property, the owner shall be entitled
to<BR>just compensation."<BR><BR>Officials worry they will either have to
abandon attempts to regulate<BR>growth or repeatedly pay big money to
landowners who oppose planning</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">and zoning regulations.<BR><BR>If zoning
regulations forbid putting a junkyard next to your house,<BR>the city or
county may have to pay the junkyard owner or repeal the<BR>ordinance,
according to an analysis from the Idaho Association
of<BR>Counties.<BR><BR>So, either the junkyard goes in or the taxpayers
pay to keep it out.<BR><BR>Opponents of the initiative point to Oregon
where Measure 37, a<BR>similar initiative, passed in 2004.<BR><BR>Despite
letting most landowners ignore land-use regulations, the<BR>state faces
more than 3,000 claims totaling in the neighborhood of<BR>$4.5
billion.<BR><BR>The Idaho initiative earned a spot on the November ballot
after<BR>conservative activist Laird Maxwell launched a $330,000 campaign
to<BR>pay signature gatherers. New York libertarian activist Howard
Rich<BR>has been identified as the source of much of the Idaho money
and<BR>initiatives in other states. Similar initiatives are on the
ballots<BR>in Washington, Montana, Nevada, Arizona and
California.<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List
services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>serving the communities
of the Palouse since
1994.<BR> <SPAN></SPAN>
http://www.fsr.net<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>