Here’s an editorial that gets to the crux of what’s wrong with Initiative 933, the ballot measure that would require government to compensate landowners for regulations that limit development options:
To tell government that it has to pay the individual for not interfering with water, air, fish or wildlife is like telling the policeman that he should pay me for not robbing the bank.
Governments have a responsibility to regulate individual actions that harm the larger community. Under I-933, governments would be required to pay landowners or, since they likely have funds to do that, waive the land-use rules altogether.
Campaigns both for and against I-933 have obscured the issue. But the bottom line is that the initiative — which is mostly funded by the same group behind similar cookie-cutter measures nationwide — would gut land-use planning that has been honed through years of democratic process. Here’s a better idea: if citizens don’t like the current laws they are free to vote out their representatives in county and state government.
Comments
5 responses to “Editorial shows flaw in ‘property-rights’ initiative”
There are many critical points to consider that make this a vital issue and rule out a simple denunciation of the idea.
First of all the bank robbing analogy is not apt at all. Theft is an established crime and the decision to steal or not is made in the face of known legal framework. At issue here are rules that change over time.
Second, while its easy to imagine egregious demands of liberty over ones property, what is more commonly at stake are ambiguous or technical changes to established law. This is not about someone who demands to bury nuclear waste in their backyard. Its about the person who inquired on purchasing a property whether they could build a garage. Five years later when they are financially prepared to do so they find that the default stream easement has been expanded from 20 to 80 feet and find the permit denied.
Third, contrary to the idea that the remedy lies in political action, fair compensation is a critical element of defence for minorities so easily victimized in a democracy. In fact its quite possible for someone to agree with a policy that will negatively impact them personally. In this way fair compensation can actually encourage support for better management by removing the disincentive of personal loss.
I’m not intimately familiar with the legislation at hand and don’t intend to argue that specifically. But a fair and consistent definition of property rights is fundamental to our democracy and economy. Owner’s affected by the majorities whims deserve fair compensation.
True — regulation should be fair and consistent. The way to do ensure that is by being part of the process that creates the laws according to the needs of the community. This measure undermines that effort by substituting ideology for carefully crafted policy.
I knew you could find an issue that get Brian fired up!
Good article on NYT today (free reg. required) covering what I consider to be a problem with Federal versus State jurisdiction on this issue in regards to how certain groups and orgainzations are able to avoid local jurisdiction on land use. I personally don’t see that the proposed legislation will do anything to prevent this problem but I suggest discussion for a comprehensive solution is still needed that will require legislation at the federal level.
“In 2000 Congress adopted and Mr. Clinton signed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which restored the “strict scrutiny” test to local zoning decisions, making it easier for churches to challenge those decisions in court.”
That NYT article is a good overview. It shows how all the land-use issues are being obscured by these anti-government measures that override representative democracy.