Bill to weaken local comp. plans on Governor's desk

[Tom Lamar <lamar@pcei.org>]

And talk about vision...

Last Friday, Senate Bill 1201 passed the House by a vote of 38-28 -- much
closer than many observers expected .  All three Latah County legislators
voted against it.  Five more nay votes would have killed the bill.

Governor Kempthorne must sign the bill by the end of this week for it to
take affect.  Please write or call him today and ask him not to sign SB
1201.  As we have mentioned to this list in the past few weeks, three
sections of the bill will make changes to the Local Land Use Planning Act
that will expedite the development approval process and discourage appeals.
It will make it more difficult for property owners and concerned citizens
to understand and participate in this process.

How to Contact Governor Kempthorne

By Phone:  334-2100
By Email:    governor@gov.state.id.us
By Mail:      P.O. Box 83720, Boise, ID  83720-0034

Why?

If signed into law by Governor Kempthorne, Senate Bill 1201 will not "gut"
comprehensive plans, but it will affect how comprehensive plans are
changed, how zoning ordinances are changed, and what concerns will be heard
when you appeal development decisions made by your city council or county
commisson to Idaho courts.  These changes will draw out  and exacerbate
disagreements between development applicants and owners of adjoining
property.

Here are the reasons we feel the Governor should veto SB 1201:

* Section 5 of SB 1201 will allow comprehensive plans to be amended at any
time.  Comprehensive plans should be amended to reflect changes in
community goals and priorities, and they should be amended using public
review and comment.  They should not be hurriedly changed every time a
developer wants to do a project in a manner that  is not in accordance with
the comprehensive plan.

* Section 8 of SB 1201 specifies that Planning and Zoning Commissions will
merely "consider" the comprehensive plan when making a recommendation to
the city council or county commission on a request to change the zoning
ordinance.  It makes no sense for the P and Z Commission and the council or
county commission to use a different process or procedure to evaluate such
a request.  The P and Z commission should value the comprehensive plan as
highly as the council or county commission. Although the final decision on
a zoning ordinance change should remain with the council or county
commission, the Act should require the P and Z commission to determine
whether or not they think the change is or is not in accordance with the
comprehensive plan.  As written, this section of SB 1201 reduces the
significance and value of the comprehensive plan at the P and Z level.

* Section 17 of SB1201 will remove a requirement that all land use
decisions be accompanied by "findings of fact and conclusions of law".
This change will make it more difficult for both applicants and concerned
parties to focus the debate during the decision-making and appeal
processes.  In their place, local governments would have to write narrative
"reasoned" statements that explain the rationale for the decision and
describe the applicable plans, statutes, and ordinances, etc. There will
likely be lawsuits to determine the adequacy of "reasoned" statements.
 Speaking of lawsuits,  Idaho judges have relied on and based decisions on
findings of fact and conclusions of law on numerous occasions.  There is no
adequate justification to remove the requirement for findings of fact and
conclusions of law.

* If signed into law, subsection (c) of Section 17 unnecessarily changes
and complicates  land use decision-making and appeal processes and may make
it more difficult for neighborhoods to show they will be harmed by an
approved development. Since it introduces a new standard of "fundamental
rights" as opposed to "substantial rights" already established in the
Administrative Procedures Act, this subsection will likely require a new
round of lawsuits to determine its effect.  Depending on the nature of
these decisions, this subsection may tilt the playing field in the
direction of developers and owners of land being developed, since neighbors
adversely impacted by a development will likely have a more difficult time
proving that they have been harmed or that the value of their property has
been fundamentally reduced by the mere approval of a development
application.  Here is the sentence of primary concern:
"Only those whose challenge to a decision demonstrates actual harm or
violation of fundamental rights, not the mere possibility thereof shall be
entitled to a remedy or reversal of a decision.

Thomas C. Lamar, Executive Director

===================================================================
Palouse-Clearwater Environmental Institute
P O Box 8596; 112 West 4th St; Suite #1
Moscow ID 83843-1096
Phone (208)882-1444; Fax (208)882-8029
url:  http://www.moscow.com/pcei

Please Note our individual staff email addresses below:

Thomas C. Lamar, Executive Director: lamar@pcei.org
Kathleen Lester, Office Manager/Environmental Education: lester@pcei.org
Laurie Gardes, Financial Manager:  gardes@turbonet.com
Anita Grover, Watersheds: grover@pcei.org
Colette DePhelps, Community Food Systems: dephelps@pcei.org
Peggy Adams, Watersheds/Food Systems: peggy931@uidaho.edu
Jon Barrett, Idaho Smart Growth:  smartgro@micron.net
Elaine Clegg, Idaho Smart Growth:  eclegg@micron.net

Celebrating thirteen years of connecting people, place and community.
===================================================================