<!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>Gary,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I for one prefer not to rely on the courts as a back-up to
clarify poorly written legislation. It was certainly possible for Prop
2 proponents to write their idea clearly. The fact that they didn't
leaves too much to the imagination of cash strapped land owners,
would-be developers and flat-out shysters - not to mention
unscrupulous attorneys.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>One doesn't have to resort to extreme cases to find examples of
how this might apply locally if passed. Take Naylor Farms for an
example. Whether you agree or not with the decision of the
commissioners, under Prop 2 it would be a moot point. Naylor would
qualify under the "or enforcement" clause and bring a Prop 2
claim. Then there's the flip side of a neighbor bringing a Prop 2
claim if it had been approved. The only possible outcome of a Prop 2
world is elimination of all land use laws as the only way to end
claims against the taxpaying public.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Mark</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">Mark, thank
you for your reply. It seems to me that your first
argument</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>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.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">...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></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">Your
second...</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Times New Roman">"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></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
face="Times New Roman">...</font><font face="Arial"
size="-1"> 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></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">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></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial"
size="-1">gc</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial"
size="-1"><b> </b></font><br>
<blockquote>----- Original Message -----</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:msolomon@moscow.com">Mark
Solomon</a></blockquote>
<blockquote><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g.
crabtree</a> ; <a
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a></blockquote
>
<blockquote><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:38
AM</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Risch Says No on Prop
2</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>Hi Gary,</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>As usual, the devil is in the details. The full text of
the legislation can be found at the Sec'y of State
website:</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote><a
href="http://www.idsos.idaho.gov/elect/inits/06init08.htm"><font
face="Lucida Grande" size="+1"
color="#000000">http://www.idsos.idaho.gov/elect/inits/06init08.htm</font
></a></blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>Mark</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>At 9:20 AM -0700 9/30/06, g. crabtree wrote:<br>
<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<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>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</blockquote>
<blockquote>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>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>