Property Rights

[Superman]

In a surprise to me, Washington State voters have rejected Initiative 933. I had little confidence they were sufficiently smart, but apparently they are. Even more surprising is Idaho's rejection of a similar measure, along with some other states. Arizona was not so smart, apparently.

The measure would have required the gubmit to reimburse land owners when land use regulations cause their property value to be below what it would otherwise be. Of course, this measure was not about land developers reaching into state coffers. I'm sure they'd like that too, but in reality it was about waiving regulations as a way of avoiding the payout. Governments do not have this kind of cash lying around, so this measure would have been a land use deregulation free-for-all.

As I say, the government would not have been able to afford the payments to enforce regulations. If it did, this would be HUGELY expensive to the taxpayer. I don't think folks here would be comfortable with the gubmit paying huge amounts of money to land developers.

So, it was a land use deregulation attempt. But it was unspecific. If folks oppose certain land use regulations, there is another way to deal with that. Target that regulation. This measure would have deregulated all land use rules at once. The bad ones and the good ones. Anybody feel comfortable with laws and initiatives that indiscriminately deregulate? Is there anybody here ignorant enough to assert that all land use regulations should be repealed? Do we need to have that discussion where we notice that some land use regulations just make sense?

[fastpat]

In Pleasanton, Ca a man bought land that included a mountain top to the west of downtown, but within the city's jurisdiction. Years after the man bought the land, the city decided that it liked the natural skyline of the mountains and decreed that no homes could be built on top of the mountain.

The man, having owned the property years before the anti-building regulation had been formulated, finally had the money to build his dream home on top of the mountain, applied for building permits (which are onerous enough) to begin construction and was turned down, seems the city had made the land use restrictions retroactive. The man went to court to either have his land grandfathered, or force the city to buy it from him at it's current value. The city did neither and was backed up by the courts. The mans land is worthless for a home, the city won't buy it, he must continue to pay taxes on it, and that's that.

Private property rights trump, or should trump, any land use regulations. Keep in mind that Corporate property is not private property.

[cashflyer]

Originally posted by fastpat
Private property rights trump, or should trump, any land use regulations.

+ 1

[Drdogface]

A similar measure was defeated in Calif. It would have passed, I think, if it had just addessed emminant domain...which is out of control since the Supremes idiotic decision. The initiative writers made Prop 90 too far reaching and it failed.

[Superman]

Originally posted by fastpat

Private property rights trump, or should trump, any land use regulations.

I don't disagree, except that this statement is WAY too broad. Just like the Initiative. That's my question.

I would agree that citizens whose property use is ambushed by governments making retroactive decisions.....should be fairly treated. I will assume that conservatives are not idiots if you will please assume that liberals are also not idiots.

The intended point of this thread is to get folks to think about the fact that some land use regulations are necessary, that perhaps some fairness should be woven into the equation and that broad, sweeping statements about gubmit and regulations being bad bad bad are.....ignorant ignorant ignorant.

[Jeff Higgins]

All I had to do was look at where the money came from that was behind this initiative. The initiative process itself is broken in Washington State, with big money using it as an end-around to our legislative process.

They tried to paint this as an initiative to help the small rural landowner that has had some of his property unfairly taken or restricted. There have been some well publicized cases of this in recent years. That, however, was not the real issue on this initiative. It was a thinly veiled attempt by big developers to skirt land use regulations that they found inconvenient. Yes, we do need those regulations, at least most of them. This initiative actually served to underscore why, for those of us paying attention.

[sammyg2]

The innitiative that was passed in kalifornia was related to an even worse problem.
There was a trend in this "great state" for local governments to claim emminent domain and take private property, paying only pennies on the dollar in many instances, and then sell it to developers (at a discounted price, probably brothers in law) who would build more modern urban businesses designed to cater to yuppies. It was a cheap and easy way to re-develop the downtown districts and believe it or not, it was legal.

One instance I read about detailed a small corner coffee shop that had been owned and operated by many generations of the same family. It had been there so long it had become a local icon.
The city council decided they would rather have an upscale market place on that block and the coffee shop was in the way of progress, which just happened to include an upscale car dealership. Seems the car dealership wanted to locate to that area which was more advantageous and coindently the car dealership was owned by a relative of a member of the city council.
They tried to kick the existing businesses off their property, then sell it to a developer so he could build (and sell at a profit) the type of businesses they wanted there.

The innitiative that was passed made that type of crap unconstitutional.

[Superman]

Thank you for paying attention. Jeff.

[Dantilla]

Initiative 933 was simply a choice: Do Washington residents want the pendulum to swing way too far THIS way, or way too far THAT way?

I'd be nice to find a nice steady spot where it belongs.

[Superman]

Besides being a superior driver Dan, you also seem to have some common sense. Accordingly, I'm going to stop thinking of you as a conservative. And yes, that is largely my intent with this thread. Land use regulations must exist and be enforced. On the other hand, governments cannot just "take" land or suddenly restrict land use without some discussion and fairness. But that's a bit harder than passing some sound-byte Initiative.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I voted for 90 but yea, it got defeated which sucks. I'm not a big fan of eminent domain for ANYTHING, certainly not for private development.

Stupid.

Private property rights are something that should be valued and cherished, not constantly battered down and taxed by misguided governments. Just my $0.02 of course. . .

[cashflyer]

Originally posted by sammyg2
There was a trend in this "great state" for local governments to claim emminent domain and take private property, paying only pennies on the dollar in many instances, and then sell it to developers...

That has happened a lot here in South Carolina. In one situation I know of, a lot of land was siezed under emminent domain and given to a large corporation. It was for our own good, of course, since it meant another employer in the area.

Fast forward several years and the corporation decided it had more land than it needed, and started selling it off to developers. I guess that was somehow also for our own good.

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
Private property rights are something that should be valued and cherished, not constantly battered down and taxed by misguided governments.

+1

[Tobra]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
I voted for 90 but yea, it got defeated which sucks. I'm not a big fan of eminent domain for ANYTHING, certainly not for private development.

Stupid.

Private property rights are something that should be valued and cherished, not constantly battered down and taxed by misguided governments. Just my $0.02 of course. . .

of course, if you had read prop 90, you would not have voted for it, because it was not written to do what it was advertised to do.

All the bond/infrastructure stuff passed, so at least that stuff you voted for passed. We do get to pass like 80 billion dollars of debt on to the kids because our legislature in California is so corrupt it can't manage to spend the money we give them on what we gave it to them for, but that is okay...