Proposition 2 is dead, right?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
From all I hear and read, it seems Proposition 2 is already dead.
This citizen initiative seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the infamous Kelso ruling by the Supreme Court last year. It supposedly protects home and landowners from government eminent domain takings, or at least gives those folks more legal ammunition to try recovering their money.
I recall from an ISU law class many years ago (the professor was awesome and everybody said looked just like Jerry Seinfeld), that there was already a court case some years back that said home and landowners have the right to get fair market value from government in cases of eminent domain. The case was a landowner somewhere in South Carolina or Georgia where the government declared the land next to his a wildlife preserve and caused his land’s value to plummet. The court case declared if the government does something to devalue your land and tries to then take it by eminent domain, they have to pay the original value before their devaluing action. This would seem to be a case overlooked by Prop 2 supporters?
The two big reasons I and many others are against Proposition 2 is because similar legislation has resulted in massive lawsuits (to the tune of billions of dollars) in other states, and because our zoning laws would become history.
I appreciated KIFI Local News 8’s report the other night when they showed a large map of the Idaho Falls and surrounding areas, with all the land-use zones depicted by color, and the reporter said that would all be history because anyone could build anything anywhere, regardless of the use-zone.
For an example of what could happen if Prop 2 passes, a buddy of mine will immediately start planning a strip club to build on one of our local foothills. He said doing this would be perfect to avoid the Idaho Falls municipal restrictions, the zoning laws would no longer be able to prevent him from building a commercial business on agricultural or residential property, and he could put up huge neons signs that you could see from all over the Idaho Falls area. And he has promised this would be no “bikini” strip bar. If anyone or any entity tries to stop him, he puts his plans on hold and files a lawsuit against the state.
I ask the Proposition 2 supporters if they support this type of scenario? Do Jim Gerber and Halli Stone support strip clubs in our foothills in the name of protecting individual property rights? Multiply this by 10,000 for all the copycats who are not serious about such a business, but know they can go through the initial motions and then sue the state for compensation.
Supporters of Prop 2 are beating the drum of individual property rights, and they are trying to drown out the voice of society, of community, of working with your neighbors. Zoning laws are in place for societal reasons. If you don’t agree with them, there are already procedures to get changes. If you can’t get the changes, then maybe it was something you shouldn’t be doing?
My goodness, even Kathy Stanger has admitted she erred in initially supporting Proposition 2, and this is a woman who stoicly stands her ground in the face of all contrary evidence or logic. If Kathy Stanger (a planning and zoning person) has reversed herself against supporting Prop 2, it’s worth paying attention as to why.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 Haha, I’ll have to tell him that. The devil is in the details!
Man, I’ve got to say McGimpsey seems to really be on top of these issues, and is always referencing his information to their proper sources. Does Russ Matthews know any of this?
Ok, so that was an unrealistic scenario. What about placing a junkyard or coal plant next to your property, or upwind from Idaho Falls?
I’ll own up to it if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t this proposition allow a developer to do this, and if they get blocked allow them to sue the state for compensation of what they could have earned (that part about compensating for value)?
Vote:
0 0 It is looking as though Sali supports Prop 2 but is keeping his mouth shut about it. Wonder why?!?
Vote:
0 0 I got a mailer in support of Prop 2 the other day, and Bill Sali is listed as a supporter.
Vote:
0 0 Maybe I’m uneducated, but I still don’t see anything wrong with prop. 2. I’m a HUGE opponent of eminent domain, and any law that will put a muzzle on that practice is a good thing, in my view.
Maybe someone can illuminate the details of this law for me?
Vote:
0 0 I’m a huge opponent of eminent domain, at least of the Kelo vs. New London type (condemning property to give to a private developer), too. But Prop 2 would do nothing for eminent domain in Idaho. The eminent domain section literally copies the language of House Bill 555 that passed the Legislature this year and was signed into law. So it would at best be redundant.
The insidious part is the compensation for regulatory actions. Idaho is the third, or fifth, depending on what you measure, fastest growing state in the country. Proper planning and zoning is critical to community management of that growth. The compensation portion of Prop 2 is a license to steal from neighbors and taxpayers. It allows lawsuits based on nothing more than speculation. Oregon’s P&Z and courts are in shambles, with $5.5 billion in lawsuits in just the last two years.
The classic example is a landowner who applies to put a pig farm next to your property in a residential neighborhood. If the local jurisdiction rejects them, they can sue for damages, even if they’d never taken step one (other than an appraisal) to put together a business plan for such a farm.
For me, the fact that Laird Maxwell is fronting this (until Nov. 8th, when he moves to AZ because Idaho’s become too liberal) with 99.9% of the money supporting this coming from a NY developer, was enough to secure my NO vote, but the language of the bill, the problems created in OR, and the opposition of nearly every statewide and local officeholder and candidate, just confirm it for me.
So continue to be against eminent domain (I’m not, entirely, as long as it’s for public purposes, such as roads, schools, etc.), but realize that a vote for Prop 2 will not change the eminent domain law one iota. It will, however, cost you and your neighbors in payouts, lawsuits, or diminished quality of life.
Vote:
0 0 Okay, so the main reason I should vote this down, according to it’s opponents, is that it’s being backed by a “wealthy New Yorker”. So what? I don’t vote on a bill because of who is backing it - I vote based on what it will do. You say that it will increase my taxes because of payoffs and lawsuits, but isn’t that because it requires the state to compensate the landowner for the land taken? If that’s the case, I will vote “yes” on this proposition!
Again, let’s not fling cliches, let’s talk about facts and actual aspects of the law. Now, again, why should I vote this bill down? On what grounds, specifically, is it wrong for Idaho?
Vote:
0 0 Okay, so the main reason I should vote this down, according to it’s opponents, is that it’s being backed by a “wealthy New Yorkerâ€.
Well, I’m an opponent, and you can see by what I wrote that it’s not my main reason. It does make me wonder about Howard Rich’s intentions when Idaho developers oppose it…
isn’t that because it requires the state to compensate the landowner for the land taken?
No. The second half of the law doesn’t apply to land takings. Land takings are covered already by existing law, which is repeated exactly in the first half of the Proposition. No new law regarding takings would be enacted by Proposition 2.
Instead the second half of the proposition would prevent counties and cities from enacting and enforcing zoning ordinances without incurring lawsuits from any interested party.
For instance, a developer could file his intent to put a high-rise, or a power plant, next to a residential neighborhood, irrespective of the strain it would put on roads, water & sewer, police and fire services, etc. If the people of the city say “no” (through P&Z), they have to compensate the landowner - even if he never actually intended to build. The alternative is to essentially eliminate P&Z, and the orderly growth that comes with good planning. Sprawl and incompatible development could then significantly and negatively impact the community.
If you think that anyone should be able to do anything with their land, regardless of its impact on their neighbors and the community, then you should probably vote for Prop 2. But realize that it does nothing for takings.
Vote:
0 0 I apologize if I seem combative, but I am really just trying to understand this.
Your opposition, it seems comes down to two points:
1) The intentions of the out-of-state developers (which seems circumstantial)
2) It takes zoning control away from the city.
So, if I’m not paranoid about out-of-state developers and don’t really care for strict zoning controls in the city, then there is really no reason to vote it down.
Look, here is my problem with your position - the opposition to prop. 2 are relying on shallow arguments (it will raise our taxes! It’s being funded by an out of stater!) to shoot it down. However, I am yet to hear a sound, logical argument against implementing it. All I am really hearing are trite arguments and speculative situations like your “evil developer” scenario.
Again, I’ll state that I am undecided on the issue. So, I will pose one additional point to you - as far as I can tell, in addition to relaxing the control the city has on zoning, this bill will require adequate compensation for land owners if their land is seized under eminent domain.
Now, on the last portion - I was appalled at the supreme court decision earlier this year that gave the government power to seize land without just compensation, so I see this portion of the bill as a decidedly good thing.
On your final point, which is what I believe this debate boils down to, is whether or not the city should be given the discretion to decide where and how developers and individuals develop land in Idaho Falls. Is this a correct characterization?
If this is so, then my vote is a resounding “yes” on prop. 2.
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy said: “So, if I’m not paranoid about out-of-state developers and don’t really care for strict zoning controls in the city, then there is really no reason to vote it down.”
The way I understand it, if this proposition passes anybody can do anything they want with their property. And if a government entity tries to stop them, the person can then sue the government entity for damages, lost income, etc. Talk about opening up a can of worms. While I don’t consider myself paranoid, I can imagine all kinds of trouble if this passes.
For instance, if you think Rex Rammell has been a troublemaker so far, just think of how much more trouble there would be if the law was on his side and we taxpayers had to pay to clean up the mess.
Jeremy, I think you are a reasonable and intelligent person and I respect your right to your opinion. Obviously there is some support for Prop 2 or it wouldn’t be on the table to begin with. As for me, I see more potential problems if this passes than if it doesn’t.
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy, You need to carefully read what John just wrote, he did a very good job of describing the effects of prop 2. Zoning laws are about providing nice, safe & clean neighborhoods. Are you saying thats not important to you? It will cost the City (taxpayers) $ in court costs which will hurt all the departments we rely on. Police, fire, downtown redevelopment, greenbelt expansion, etc etc
Vote:
0 0 Okay, this is what I understand Max Laird had a piece of property he wanted to split into more (smaller) parcels than the County zoning ordinance allowed.
This is one of those trickly propositions, the first part eminent domain is already in effect it just sounds so good they added it in there, the second part is the tricky part. Word has it, if this thing passes the Planning & Zoning would dissolve to avoid any law suits which would hurt the public safty departments. Jeremy, what you need to do is go down to the Planning Department, get a copy of the Zoning Ordinance and read it. These are the protections as residents of Idaho Falls we would lose. The cost of a home is hugh, usually your largest investment. This is why Wal-mart is not next door to schools, homes and parks. How would you like a factory next door? Have you noticed new commercial properties now require landscaping, kiss that goodbye. The effects would be hugh and they are things we all take for granted.
Vote:
0 0 Okay, I am beginning to understand the point - Prop. 2 would ensure a clean, tidy city-scape and would continue our fine tradition of separating our work from our homes - kind of a “don’t crap where you sleep” philosophy.
As a utilitarian concept, this is great, but what about the one factor that has been overlooked - personal freedom. Isn’t it every citizen’s right to do with their land whatever they choose? Shouldn’t we be allowed the liberty to use our land, which we paid for, for whatever we wish (within the law and reason, of course)? Perhaps in setting up all of these controls, we have forgotten that American was founded upon that social ideal of life, liberty, and property (later changed to “pursuit of happiness”.)
What is the opposition’s response to this?
Vote:
0 0 In a perfect world with perfect people!
Buddy your just being silly now.
First decide what you want to do on your land and then buy your land in a location which allows that use.
Vote:
0 0 So your argument against my point of free use of one’s land is that I’m being silly.
Yep, still voting “yes” on Prop. 2.
Dang, and I was hoping that someone would actually convince me otherwise.
Vote:
0 0 Well that was easy, guess I should go into politics. Now if I say your being intelligent would you vote “no”. Seriously vote how you want to vote. You asked the question and you answered your question.
“within the law and reason, of course”
Current zoning and land use laws in Idaho are very reasonable.
Vote:
0 0 Well then I guess we are moving toward a discussion over whether strict zoning restrictions ought to be law in Idaho, to which I will respond that they should not.
Here is my philosophy - given the chance, a community will govern itself. For example, you need not require a company to maintain a beautiful building if a beautiful building will naturally attract customers and, therefor, encourage businesses to beautify. If an individual wishes to build a strip mall on a piece of property that he or she rightfully purchased, then who are we to deny them? If they are able to muster the funds and gain community support, then why not?
Are we children, who need a government to tell us when and where we may build and how we should build it?
I’m reminded of a situation in my old hometown of St. George, Utah where all of the movie theaters are owned by one individual. As a result, his theaters became old and in disrepair. So, soon after, a major movie theater company made a proposal to build a cineplex in the city, but the man had enough friends on the city council and other entities that they denied the other business from building.
Not long after, the man’s company built a nicer movie house … but charged nearly $10 a ticket.
Here is my point (sorry for the long-winded example): If we remove the government as yea and nay-sayer over who can and cannot build, the advantage is two-fold - you achieve more growth due to less red tape, and you encourage competition (the foundation of capitalism) which will keep costs low. Allowing the government to dictate who can and cannot build only allows to the system to become muddled in the beaurocratic process.
So, it is an issue of whether we trust people to govern themselves or if we require a government to do it for us.
My position should be clear by now.
Vote:
0 0 Well…..you have more faith in people than I do. Oregon passed Prop 2 (are we still talking about that) and are swamped in law suits, Montana took in off their ballot because they believed the two part issue made it unconstitutional.
The conversation your trying to get into is more than I want to think about right now. I guess Denmark makes it work. Who knows.
Vote:
0 0 Ok, how about other examples of businesses you would not want next door to you?
A noisy bar with a bandstand that plays until 1 am?
A fast food place with a 24-hour drive-through? (Trust me you don’t want to live near this, I lived within earshot of the Woodruff Jack-in-the-Box long enough to know that you get woken up when the bars close and the drunks want their fried food.)
A dairy?
I can’t think of anything else that would be horrible to live next to, but the point is any of these businesses could be built anywhere around existing housing because the zoning laws would be nullified.
The other part that makes me leery of the proposal are my ultra-conservative friends who are also against this proposition. They are normally big personal land-rights advocates, but they recognize this as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Leave Your Comment
Our Community's Comment Guidelines:- Please stay polite and on topic.
- Your email will never be published.
- No profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- No personal attacks, name-calls, put-downs, or baiting other guests, races, genders, or religions.
- Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
- No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
- No religious discussions (for or against). Go to http://religiondebates.blogspot.com for religious discussions.
- Use the "I" word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
- Limit yourself to using one name per thread to demonstrate responsibility.
- If you think a comment is inappropriate, ask Joe to review it.
Loading ...
Vote:
Whether fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on one’s point of view, your buddy’s plan likely won’t work.
Prop 2 specifically exempts zoning ordinances limiting strip clubs from requiring compensation:
(6) Subsection (5) of this section shall not apply to land use laws:
…
(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
Regardless, for the other reasons you mention, Prop 2 should go down hard.