Vote YES on Proposition 2 and protect our Unalienable Right to Property!
There has been much debate on this issue. It really includes two parts:
Part 1: Eminent Domain – the forced sale of private property for government acquisition. This section limits the use of eminent domain to take private property. It ensures the government won't take your property, simply to put in a business that would generate more tax revenue. There has really been no debate about this section, and Idaho Legislature has already enacted (effective July 1, 2006) some protection in this category ... but where the Legislature only gave the people 80% protection against eminent domain for "economic development," Prop. 2 gives the people 100% protection. It expands upon what the Legislature has already enacted, and makes it stronger.
Part 2: Regulatory Takings – zoning regulations that take value from private property, literally robbing the private owner of some of his assets. This is where the debate begins.
The opposition is seeking to instill fear by fabricating wild claims in asking, “If this passes, what is to stop my neighbor from putting a pig farm or landfill right next to my home?” This is preposterous and unfounded. The answer is; can they do that now?” As stated in section 4, subsection 6e*, this Proposition will not affect any zoning laws that are now in effect. Strangely, I never hear opponents refer to the actual wording of Prop 2, to illustrate their point.
Proponents say this section simply ensures that, if new regulations restrict the use of your property such that the property value is reduced, then you must be fairly compensated. This will force the government to weigh the perceived advantages of rezoning against the financial impact to the property owner. The private owner is compensated instead of eating the bill for society’s benefit. Fiscal accountability – sounds fair enough!
What about Oregon?
Opponents have also brought up that Oregon recently passed a similar measure (measure 35), and now have billions of dollars in unpaid claims!
This is a half truth. Oregon's measure 35 is similar to Idaho's Prop. 2, but Oregon's also has a retro-active clause. This allows past violations to be contested. Yes, Oregon has had many claims, but all of them are for past violations. Interestingly, Oregon has not paid a single claim, but instead, they have given back the property rights the owner had when they purchased the property.
If they felt the new zoning was important enough, they could choose to compensate the property owner for their loss.
Hurrah for Oregon!The people have won back their property rights!
Now, it is Idaho's turn!
Vote YES on Proposition 2 and protect our Unalienable Right to Property!
Below is the actual wording in question from section 4, subsections 5 & 6:
"(5) If an owner’s ability to use, possess, sell, or divide private real property is limited or prohibited
by the enactment or enforcement of any land use law after the date of acquisition by the owner of the property in a manner that reduces the fair market value of the property, the owner shall be entitled to
just compensation, and shall not be required to first submit a land use application to remove, modify,
vary, or otherwise alter the application of the land use law as a prerequisite to demanding or receiving
just compensation under subsection (9) of this section.
(6) Subsection (5) of this section shall not apply to land use laws:
(a) Limiting or prohibiting a use or division of real property for the protection of public health and
safety, such as fire and building codes, health and sanitation regulations, traffic control, liquor control,
solid or hazardous waste regulations, and pollution control regulations;
(b) Limiting or prohibiting a use or division of real property commonly and historically recognized as
a public nuisance under common law;
(c) Required by federal law;
(d) Limiting or prohibiting the use or division of a property for the purpose of selling pornography
or performing nude dancing, provided such land use laws are consistent with the Idaho and United
States Constitutions; or (e) Were enacted before the effective date of this Section.
(f) That do not directly regulate an owner’s land."
Since this only applies to future
land use restrictions, any current zoning restrictions would still be in effect, and unaffected by this initiative.
The following article illustrates the need for the protection in part 2 of Proposition 2:
(Featured in Idaho Values Alliance newsletter dated Monday Oct 16, 2006)
Ed Tarrazas of Blaine County is the poster child of why the protections provided by Proposition 2 are needed. He owned 115 acres, on which he intended to build four houses. His retirement plan was to sell two of the $1 million homes, and move his family into the other two, where they would live debt-free. But the county government changed land use policies, prohibiting development on hillsides, leaving Mr. Tarrazas with devalued property, a shattered plan for his future, and no legal remedy.
". . . critics make the utterly bogus charge that Prop. 2 will allow pig farms and such like to be built next to your house. Even the Idaho Statesman labels this accusation "hyperbole." The only way a pig farm can be built next to your home is if current zoning classifications allow it, and that would hardly be Prop. 2's fault.
"In fact, the truth is quite the opposite. If Prop. 2 passes, and government then changes land use policies to permit a pig farmer to set up shop next door to your home, you will have legal recourse, which you do not have now. So Prop. 2 doesn't create the pig farm scenario, it solves it."
