<!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: [Vision2020] Risch Says No on Prop
2</title></head><body>
<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" size="+1"
color="#000000">http://www.idsos.idaho.gov/elect/inits/06init08.htm</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 type="cite" 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 type="cite" 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 type="cite" 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>
</body>
</html>