<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT face="Times New Roman">Subject: Spokesman Review re
Prop 2. 10/22/06<BR><BR><BR>Sunday, October 22, 2006<BR><BR>ELECTION
'06<BR><BR>Land-use limits could be undercut<BR><BR>Prop 2 reflects growth
pains<BR><BR><BR><BR>Betsy Z. Russell <BR>Staff writer<BR>October 22,
2006<BR><BR>If there's one thing at the heart of every controversy about the
changing<BR>nature of North Idaho in the past decade, it's growth.<BR><BR>More
people, more homes and more businesses mean more cars on the roads,<BR>more kids
in school, pressure on water and sewer systems, rising public<BR>costs that
drive up property taxes and clashes between the new and the old.<BR><BR>Now, an
initiative on the November ballot would change how Idaho communities<BR>approach
growth. Proposition 2 would require local governments to pay<BR>landowners for
lost potential value whenever any land-use regulation<BR>prevents them from
fully developing their property to its "highest and best<BR>use."<BR><BR>Boise
land-use attorney Heather Cunningham, an advocate of the measure,<BR>said,
"Government has, in my view, gone too far in imposing regulations on<BR>private
landowners." If a community wants to keep open space or limit<BR>housing density
to benefit everyone, she said, "Why shouldn't the public be<BR>willing to pay
for it, if it's a public benefit?"<BR><BR>Planners, government officials,
smart-growth advocates and even Realtors and<BR>many developers across the state
are against the measure.<BR><BR>"It just changes everything," said Rand Wichman,
who was Kootenai County's<BR>planning director for six years, and now works as a
planning consultant for<BR>private developers. "Instead of worrying about what
are the traffic impacts,<BR>does this project make sense for the community, what
is the appropriate<BR>density and that kind of thing, you end up with a whole
different set of<BR>things to consider."<BR><BR>Kootenai County's budget is just
over $60 million, Wichman said, so it could<BR>never afford to pay a claim for,
say, denying a $150 million luxury<BR>subdivision. "That's just not going to
happen," he said. "It really does<BR>take conventional planning and just throw
it right out the window."<BR><BR>That's just fine with Marvin Erickson, who has
waged an unsuccessful battle<BR>for years to develop a subdivision on local icon
Canfield Mountain, where<BR>the zig-zag shaped road to his house is visible
across the county on the<BR>otherwise wooded hillside.<BR><BR>"I think it's been
a long time coming," Erickson said. "This new law would<BR>put a monkey wrench
in their actions to thwart and subvert my rights."<BR><BR>Cunningham said
government would have a "free pass" to avoid big payments to<BR>thwarted
developers. "Government has 90 days to remove the regulation or pay<BR>the
claim," she said. "They can remove the regulation and walk away
from<BR>it."<BR><BR>But the Idaho initiative, unlike Oregon's Measure 37 on
which it was<BR>modeled, doesn't let local government waive the land-use rule
just for that<BR>one landowner. The regulation would have to be repealed
permanently, for<BR>everyone.<BR><BR>If Idaho began repealing its land-use rules
in a time of significant growth,<BR>the result would be "pretty much chaos,"
said Jerry Mason, attorney for the<BR>Association of Idaho Cities and for 10
individual Idaho cities. "Those<BR>regulations are just part of everyday life
today," he said. "They're how the<BR>built community happens.<BR><BR>"Roads are
of sufficient width and sufficient quality that taxpayers can<BR>afford to
maintain them. Water systems provide us clean drinking water. S We<BR>have
parks, we have community facilities, we have traffic signals ­ all<BR>these
things come about through development regulations," Mason said.<BR>"Without
that, it would be a very chaotic world."<BR><BR>Ken Harward, executive director
of the association of cities, said, "Cities<BR>would no longer have an ability
to control their destiny. S Good city<BR>planning is for the purpose of having a
good, peaceful co-existence of all<BR>citizens and neighbors, and this really
threatens that."<BR><BR>Jon Barrett, executive director of Idaho Smart Growth,
works in Boise but<BR>traveled to North Idaho over the summer to conduct
workshops on zoning code<BR>reform. He found people upset about growth and its
impacts on their property<BR>taxes.<BR><BR>"If our development is happening in
an inefficient, high-cost kind of way,<BR>that's contributing to increased
property taxes," he said.<BR><BR>Barrett gave the example of a neighborhood
where 500 feet of roadway serves<BR>10 families, versus a more sprawling one
where the lots and homes are laid<BR>out so that the same road serves only four
families. The road still costs<BR>the same amount either way, but it costs each
family more under the second<BR>scenario.<BR><BR>"Smart growth" approaches ­
accomplished through land-use regulations ­ can<BR>allow basic services to
be provided at lower cost, Barrett said.<BR><BR>Proposition 2 backers say that's
no reason to allow government to impact<BR>property values. "Under current law
right now, governments have the power to<BR>regulate your property, reduce its
value, and not pay you for your loss,"<BR>said Laird Maxwell, head of "This
House is My Home," the group pushing the<BR>initiative. "That is a bad hammer
that they have in their planning toolbox,<BR>and Proposition 2 takes that hammer
away from them."<BR><BR>Barrett said the measure creates uncertainty about how
neighborhoods and<BR>communities will develop in the future, especially if
land-use rules could<BR>be repealed by governments seeking to avoid huge
payments they can't afford.<BR>Then developers would have free rein, he said.
"They can develop what they<BR>want wherever they want, regardless of how it
affects the community."<BR><BR>The election is Nov. 7.<BR><BR>Related
stories: <FONT face=Arial>This article is about the position of candidates
for office on Prop 2. It should be noted that all candidates for the
legislature or county commissioner in Latah County oppose
it.</FONT><BR><BR>Elections - Idaho<BR>Where they stand<BR><BR>Most major
candidates, whether Republican or Democrat, say Proposition 2 on<BR>the Nov. 7
ballot would be bad for Idaho.<BR><BR>Among the four candidates for governor,
both Republican Butch Otter and<BR>Democrat Jerry Brady oppose Proposition 2.
Libertarian Ted Dunlap and<BR>Constitution Party candidate Marvin "Pro-Life"
Richardson support it.<BR><BR>Both Republican Jim Risch and Democrat Larry
LaRocco, who are running for<BR>lieutenant governor, oppose Proposition
2.<BR><BR>Both Republican Attorney General Lawrence Wasden and his
Democratic<BR>challenger, Bob Wallace, oppose Proposition 2.<BR><BR>In
Legislative Districts 4 and 5, which include Kootenai County, all<BR>candidates
for the House and Senate oppose Proposition 2, except for<BR>Constitution Party
candidate Ray Writz and Independent candidate Jeremy<BR>Boggess, who are both
vying for the Dist. 4 Senate seat.<BR><BR>In District 5, Democrat Lyndon
Harriman hasn't yet taken a stance. Both<BR>Republican Todd Tondee and
independent Tom Macy, who are in the race for a<BR>Kootenai County Commission
seat, oppose Proposition 2.</FONT><BR><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>