vision2020@moscow.com: The proposed new 'takings' legislation
The proposed new 'takings' legislation
Jo Williams (tajs@potlatch.com)
Thu, 5 Feb 1998 06:19:25 -0800
After reading Amy VanHoover's description of the proposed 'taking'
legislation, I became a bit curious; usually such narrowly drawn
legislation has a particular business interest in mind....
Reading the bill, House Bill 487, two areas of concern come to mind;
housing development 'open spaces' requirements (setting aside small areas
in new housing subdivisions for parks, playgrounds, open areas with trees,
etc.), and reduction in size of any proposed housing development.
For example, if a landowner wants a high density development and the
local planning board reduces that density, a claim could be made that the
'conditions' (not a complete denial of the permit) were a taking.
Likewise, a planning/zoning decision to demand x square footage of open
park area within a planned development might raise a claim of 'taking'.
Whether these claims would succeed would require months of review,
paperwork, etc. on the part of county planning officials and county
attorneys. Just what we need; more red tape; this alone might
discourage county planners from even bothering to write conditions
beneficial to the eventual renters and/or the general public.
And you don't even want to think about what might happen to counties that
have old, out-dated, land use planning ordinances........from the look of
the bill, if a developer can find any loophole in planning laws that
aren't pinpoint specific, then a claim that the county is 'taking' value
for the scenic or economic benefit of the public- 'whether expressly
stated or not'- can tie up county officials for months.....on each
specific condition in the permit.
And of course what is expressly written OUT of the bill is my decreased
property value if a factory farm moves in next door; only the OWNER of the
property whose land is the subject of the permit or conditional permit may
make a claim.
I'm sure there are other areas where this bill will delight developers,
but frankly I don't think real estate developers need the state to assist
them in steamrolling county officials; with limited budgets, often
part-time commissioners and zoning members, developers already have a leg
up.
And finally I am disturbed by the old-fashioned idea underlying this
bill- full development and 'highest and best use' (always defined
economically) are of the highest priority. When is Idaho going to realize
that in some instances and some areas, scenic beauty and peaceful settings
ARE the highest and best use.
I believe this is a bad piece of legislation for a narrow interest group
and would hope Rep. Trail would vote against it. Jo Williams
tajs@potlatch.com
This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet
This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet