[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 Is there anybody here ignorant enough to assert that all land use regulations should be repealed?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?