vision2020@moscow.com: Re: Legislative Newsletter III--January 25 - February 1, 1998

Re: Legislative Newsletter III--January 25 - February 1, 1998

Amy VanHoover (hine9441@uidaho.edu)
Tue, 3 Feb 1998 07:40:48 +0000

Mr. Trail:
I have been reading the takings bill. I found several things interesting.
As I read it, the bill will not apply to denial of a request to
rezone property. So this would not apply to a person that wants to
build a business on residential property but is denied rezoning.
Actions already in place by state and local governments that are related to local
planning efforts are excluded.
When you buy property you expect to be able to
develop your land to the extent allowed under the applicable zoning.
I think this bill gives the "little guy" a remedy when he or she
finds out that the rules have changed and they will no longer be able
to use their property as previously planned.
The proposed legislation is not applicable to law or regulation of the federal
government or any state agency acting on federal regulations. So
wouldn't anything falling under say, the Endangered Species Act be
exempted? That doesn't sound all that threatening to me.
I did see that it applies to lands that are "characterized by open space and/or
are a location of naturally occurring material resources". As I read
it the bill is written to apply to property owners denied the
opportunity to develop property for reasons "of economic or scenic
benefit to the general public."
The filing fee for any claim under this law is $500. All that entitles a
person to is the chance to have your claim looked at. I don't think the intent
of this is to make government pay for everyone's property, it is to give
people a chance to have their claim heard. I think this legislation
will make it easier for property owners to develop what is legally
theirs. And in the end, it will increase our city, county or state
tax bases and enable us to build highways or improve our
infrastructure to make this a better place to live.
I also noticed that anyone that files a court action cannot use this claims
process later. This bill simply supplies a process beneficial to the
individual property owner and small businessman. Not every property
owner can afford a large retainer that would be necessary to take a case to court.
Our forefathers had the wisdom to include the 5th and 10th Amendments
in our Constitution to enable us to hold private property. Without
private property rights you cannot possibly have liberty.
The government has an obligation to allow us as citizens to develop
our land.
You commented, as another vision2020 subscriber did, that the
government should be paid when its actions raise property values. Well,
doesn't the government already get "paid" by
property owners when this happens? I would think
that increasing the taxes paid would be payment for improvements.
This state is only (approximately) 19% privately owned. That's one
of the major reasons that our state doesn't have decent highways-we
simply do not have the taxes generated to pay for these things.

Thank you very much for allowing me to voice my comments and
concerns.
Sincerely,
Amy VanHoover


This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet
This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet