vision2020@moscow.com: 1st Forwarded message about takings bill
1st Forwarded message about takings bill
Tom Lamar (lamar@pcei.org)
Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:39:12 -0800
>From: Jon Barrett <smartgro@micron.net>
>To: "'smartgro@onenw.org'" <smartgro@onenw.org>
>Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 14:55:40 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Sender: owner-smartgro@onenw.org
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: Jon Barrett <smartgro@micron.net>
>
>
>===== A message from the 'smartgro' discussion list =====
>
>Members of the Smart Growth E-Mail List-
>
>(Now (Friday) is the time to contact members of the State Affairs Committee
>in the House of Representatives to let them know what you think of HB 538
>(Rep. Kempton's Takings Bill). As reported in a previous message, the
>State Affairs Committee will be conducting a hearing on the bill this
>Monday, February 9 at 8:30 in Room 412 of the Capitol Building.
> Obviously, the best way to voice your concerns about the bill is to
>attend and speak at the hearing in person.
>If your schedule does not allow you to attend in person, you can get
>messages to members of the House State Affairs Committee by phone, fax, and
>e-mail. When using the technology of your choice, remember to include your
>name, phone number and address on all correspondence. Also be sure to
>specify which legislator(s) you would like your message to go to. To make
>e-mailing or faxing a message as easy as possible, feel free to use any or
>all of the ideas found in the attached sample letter. By e-mailing or
>faxing either this letter, and edited version of it, or a letter of your
>own, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to make sure your voice is
>heard. I have confirmed that the members of the State Affairs Committee
>will be checking for messages and mail just before their meeting starts on
>Monday morning. This allows you to fax or e-mail a message over the
>weekend, if you can not get to it today.
>
>I will send you a second e-mail that contains a list of the members of the
>State Affairs Committee and the various ways they can be contacted, I
>wanted to report to you a few things people are saying about this bill as
>well as a few observations of my own.
>
>* I've been talking to many people about this bill. From these
>conversations, I have found one thing to be certain: there is great
>uncertainty and confusion about how this bill, if it becomes law, would be
>interpreted and applied. I'd like to point out three examples.
>1. The bill states that a property owner can use the provisions of this
>bill if he or she feel a development order (a.k.a. a decision on a
>development permit application or issuance of a regulatory action) reduces
>the value of his or her property. Within the definition of "development
>order", the bill states "Rezoning of a specific parcel of land is expressly
>included." However, the definition ends with the sentence "Denial of a
>request to rezone is also excluded". I say "What gives?"
>
>2. The "highest and best use" of a piece of property is defined as the
>premise upon which a value estimate of real property is based." How does
>the zoning designation of a piece of property affect its highest and best
>use? Can a property owner or an appraiser hired by the owner begin a
>calculation of highest and best use with the premise that commercial or
>industrial uses are appropriate on any parcel, even it is currently zoned
>for residential uses?
>
>3. Under the sections of the bill related to mediation and special master
>processes, the bill defines "owner" as someone with an interest in real
>property who filed an application for a development permit, or who holds
>title to property that is subject to an enforcement action issued by a
>government entity. This seems clear enough. However, under the sections
>pertaining to judicial consideration, "property owner" is vaguely defined
>as "the person who holds legal title to the property at issue." The
>confusion? If I could demonstrate through an appraisal that an approved
>development is going to reduce the value of my property, could I seek
>compensation through this bill? The bill is not clear on this question?
>
>Here are what other people are saying about this bill:
>
>"It is highly problematic how our courts would go about resolving the
>apparent inconsistencies between this Bill and the Local Land Use Planning
>Act. If the bill is enacted into law, and has a later date of adoption,
>the courts might very well conclude that it was intended to supersede the
>Local Land Use Planning Act. Consequently, this would call into question
>virtually all prospective land use regulation which had the effect of
>diminishing someone's property values."
>- Attorney Forrest Goodrum in a October 23, 1997 report to the Idaho
>Building Contractor's Association
>
>"The legal standards for the prosecution of claims are vague and confusing
>and in apparent conflict with powers granted to governmental entities under
>other Idaho statutes. These difficulties could only be resolved through
>judicial decisions on a case-by-case basis. It would be a long and
>expensive process."
>- Attorney Forrest Goodrum in a October 23, 1997 report to the Idaho
>Building Contractor's Association
>
>" the result (of HB 538) will either be to hamstring local officials in
>their efforts to protect the public health and safety or to generate legal
>controversy which will only enrich those who have chosen law as their
>profession"
>-October 20, 1997 letter from Daniel Chadwick and Lorna Jorgensen, Idaho
>Association of Counties, to Rep Jim Kempton.
>
>'The legislation would override the rights of participation and protection
>of property rights for adjoining landowners in ways that existing law does
>not contemplate."
>-October 20, 1997 letter from Daniel Chadwick and Lorna Jorgensen, Idaho
>Association of Counties, to Rep Jim Kempton.
>
>"It is incredible that the (special master) hearing itself is described as
>an event to "focus attention on the impact of the governmental action
>giving rise to the request for relief." In other words, it is quite clear
>that the hearing is not an impartial fact-finding procedure. It is, in
>fact, a Star Chamber proceeding which the government, almost by definition,
>is destined to lose. Over all, (this bill) is vague, internally
>inconsistent, and a trial lawyer's dream"
> -Bill Craven, Sierra Club
>
>"This bill contradicts the finding in Dawson v. Blaine County that property
>owners do not have the right to the highest and best use of their
>property."
> -Margery Weir Smith, Deputy Attorney for Boise City
>
This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet
This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet