<!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>Gary, I'm sure I don't have an infinitely greater
knowledge of anything than you do. We both seem to have read a little bit,
but there is so much more out there to be read that undoubtedly hasn't been read
by either of us. Declaring my knowledge as infinitely greater, well, I
appreciate the thought and am chuckling right along with you and that rapier wit
of yours...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>As for Prop 2, before I move on to your other queries, I
would just note that in addition to the opposition to Prop 2 by that well known
bleeding heart liberal, Gov. Jim Risch, all four candidates for Latah
County Commissioner, Don Ball, Jennifer Barrett, Jack Nelson and Linda
Pike, and all three candidates for state representative from this district,
Roger Falen, Shirley Ringo and Tom Trail, are opposed to Prop 2.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>With the exception of Jeff Harkins, who hasn't stated his
stand on the issue, perhaps you (if your "let the genie loose" comment can
be taken as support for Prop2), and apparently some significant percentage
of board members of the GMA (which expressly declined to take a
position on Prop 2), I don't know of any local public figures who support Prop
2. On this issue the MCA is aligned with every Republican and Democratic
candidate for local office, the League of Women Voters and the Associations
of Idaho Cities and Counties. If you believe in zoning and don't want to
live in places without land use laws, like Houston TX or Idaho County, then
after seriously considering the language of this proposal you will very likely
oppose it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Now let me compliment you once more on your sense of humor
and excellent writing style, before turning to the "stifling scrutiny of the
herd." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Actually, there are very few land use proposals that
generate any interest from the MCA. Admittedly, we are against back room
deals and approvals without a public process, when laws are being changed to
favor the few, but the vast majority of land use decisions operate within the
framework of the local land use laws and are relatively uncontroversial.
It is only the occasional decision in which changes in the land use laws are
being sought that we might take an interest. We believe that when
taxpayers buy property in a particular zone that they have a right to
expect that it will remain so, or that they will have an opportunity
to discuss the wisdom of the change, because the changed uses of your neighbors,
that would otherwise be illegal uses without the zoning change, can
definitely affect your own property values, not to mention your use and
enjoyment of your own property. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>As for my position on eminent domain and the just
compensation clause, I think eminent domain ought rarely be sought, but in
proper instances, roads, for one easy example, it is axiomatic that just
compensation ought to be paid to the owner whose property is confiscated for the
public good. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>There are many instances where eminent domain ought not
even be allowed. I completely disagree with the Supreme Court's
<U>Kelo</U> decision and oppose eminent domain for private commercial uses, such
as the commercial/housing/shopping /office project that prevailed in
<U>Kelo</U>. In <U>Kelo</U> the developer was allowed to use eminent
domain to kick people out of their own homes so the land could be redeveloped in
a commercial venture that stood to make a lot of money. I think the
Supreme Court decided <U>Kelo</U> wrongly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Despite the efforts of many to label the MCA anti-growth,
that could not be further from the truth. We support growth. We are
holding a forum on Oct. 9 that seeks to get the community thinking about how to
go about building a reservoir, so that we may stop draining the aquifer and
still have water for future growth. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Admittedly, we do not support any and all growth and the
libertarian notion of no regulation at all. We prefer the planning and
predictability that should occur if the zoning code were followed. We gave
up some of our property rights when we adopted the zoning code in return for the
predictability of knowing that the uses next door to our own land were likewise
limited. And our acceptance of land use laws and the predictability and
stability that they bring is why the MCA is against Prop 2.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Bruce Livingston</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </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">
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=jampot@adelphia.net href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g. crabtree</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=jeanlivingston@turbonet.com
href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com">Bruce and Jean Livingston</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> ; <A
title=msolomon@moscow.com href="mailto:msolomon@moscow.com">Mark Solomon</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, September 30, 2006 4:11 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Risch Says No on Prop 2</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bruce, I defer to your infinitely greater
knowledge of the law and the byzantine ways of the courts. I based what I had
to say on what I thought was common sense, a concept not utilized in cases
such as these, apparently. That or my concept of same is decidedly out of
step, a notion that I readily admit is a definite possibility.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This being said, I still have to wonder if
turning lose the libertarian genii might not be preferable to the stifling
scrutiny of the herd. As president of an organization that seems
to believe that no land use decision is beyond the oversite of every
living, breathing soul with an opinion, it's not too surprising that you would
chime in as to the horrors of this proposition. Perhaps a taste of chaos might
be just the thing to swing things back to a more reasonable middle ground.
That or folks might just learn to like the genii. Either way, I'm
happy.</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></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>P.S. Since you and Mark both primarily focused on
how Prop 2 would affect current land use regulation, should I surmise that
with cleaned up language you would become ardent supporters of the concept of
property owners being compensated for after the fact government takings, or
does the idea of a little suffering by the few for the decidedly
debatable greater glory of the many still have a certain je ne sais
quoi?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</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=jeanlivingston@turbonet.com
href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com">Bruce and Jean Livingston</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> ; <A
title=msolomon@moscow.com href="mailto:msolomon@moscow.com">Mark Solomon</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, September 30, 2006 1:14
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Risch Says No
on Prop 2</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Gary, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I do not share your expectation that the Idaho Supreme
Court will ignore the plain language of the statute that would become state
law if the electorate passes Proposition 2. There are many cases on
statutory interpretation, and the most common rule of construction (or
statutory interpretation) is that the plain language of the statute
means what it says. Another common rule of construction is that every
word of the statute is intended to have meaning, and you cannot read out of
existence a clause in the statute, just because you think it is silly or
unwise. And of course the cases are legion that note the difference
between "and" and "or," as well as "may" and "shall." If the statute
plainly states that it applies (and compensation must <FONT
color=#0000ff><STRONG>["shall"] </STRONG></FONT>be paid) when a
property owner's ability to use land is "limited <FONT
color=#0000ff><STRONG>or</STRONG></FONT> prohibited" [<FONT
color=#0000ff><STRONG>meaning either</STRONG></FONT>] by "the enactment
<STRONG><FONT color=#0000ff>or </FONT></STRONG>enforcement" [<FONT
color=#0000ff><STRONG>again, meaning either</STRONG></FONT>] of any land use
law that diminishes the property value after the property was acquired by
the landowner, the meaning is clear. You cannot interpret this statute
to mean only the enactment of a land use law subsequent to the owner's
acquisition of the land, because that interpretation reads out of the
statute the plain language -- "or enforcement" of any land use law -- and
denies the "or enforcement" clause of any meaning.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Look at the language of the statute
again:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>"<FONT color=#ff0000>If an owner's ability to <U>use, possess,
sell, or divide</U> private real property</FONT> <FONT color=#008000><U>is
limited or prohibited</U></FONT> <FONT color=#0000ff>by the <U>enactment or
enforcement</U></FONT> <FONT color=#000080>of <EM>any</EM> land-use
law</FONT> <FONT color=#ff0000>after the date of acquisition by the owner of
the property</FONT> <FONT color=#808000>in a manner that reduces the
fair-market value of the property</FONT>, the owner<U> shall</U> be entitled
to just compensation."</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>This proposition should be seen for what it is -- an
attempt to overturn land use laws and eliminate the ability of local
governments to plan and control development through the use of
zoning laws, laws that give property owners some dependability and
predictability on how the land around them can be used.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I understand and appreciate the belief of the most
ardent defenders of private property rights that zoning laws are bad policy
and an infringement of individual rights. There are communities that
have chosen not to have zoning laws, presumably for those very
reasons. Reason Magazine routinely used to cite Houston, Texas as an
example of how "successful" such a system can work, with a factory next to a
store, next to a house, etc., and how the market controlled uses in Houston,
rather than a zoning code. Others have disagreed with the Libertarian
publishers of Reason about how "successful" Houston's lack of land use laws
has been, and I suspect that is why suburbs surrounding Houston chose to
accept some limitation on their private property rights in exchange for the
reliability and predictability of the zoning codes that were adopted in
those communities. I believe that Idaho County is another example of a
place that has not chosen to have a zoning code, and there, presumably, a
trailer can be built next to a house, next to a gun club, next to a
church, next to a machine shop, next to a bar, etc., etc.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>While one might disagree over the wisdom of having a
zoning law or not, based on one's willingness to limit property rights in
any fashion or not, one ought not to presume that Proposition 2 does not
mean what it says. It is plainly written in such broad language
for a reason -- to gut land use laws by making it too expensive for any
local government, not just to enact, but <FONT color=#0000ff><STRONG>to
enforce, </STRONG></FONT>existing laws. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>It is unreasonable of you to presume that a state
court will ignore long held rules of statutory interpretation to find a
middle ground in what the statute might be interpreted to mean, (you
activist judge, you!), simply because you find it preposterous that someone
could intend to pass a statute that would allow property owners to do
whatever they wanted with their land and blackmail communities into allowing
any use of private property based on potentially exorbitant claims for
"just" compensation, notwithstanding the terms of the existing land use
statute as written. There are many people with Libertarian beliefs who
think that eliminating restrictions of any kind on all private property is a
good thing and not the least bit preposterous. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>In sum, I think you are absolutely wrong to assume
that Mark's argument is "specious," and I think you are highly likely to be
wrong in assuming that the Idaho Supreme Court will interpret
Proposition 2 in a way that does not give meaning to the "or enforcement"
clause and the intent of the proposition. The proponents of this
proposition are ardent Libertarians, and it would be inconsistent with their
beliefs and intent to interpret the statute to mean anything other than what
it actually says, since that plain language is entirely consistent with
their Libertarian philosophy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Bruce Livingston</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
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=jampot@adelphia.net href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g.
crabtree</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> ; <A
title=msolomon@moscow.com href="mailto:msolomon@moscow.com">Mark
Solomon</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, September 30, 2006
11:54 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Risch Says
No on Prop 2</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>