[Capr-announce] I-933 . . . But what about the money?

[Rodney McFarland]

This message is one of a series about the Property Fairness Initiative to
address concerns raised
by the initiative's opponents. We hope that you find this information
useful.

If you find this helps you understand I-933 better, please feel free to
share it with your friends and neighbors. 

Please visit www.supporting933.org <http://www.supporting933.org/>  for
previous essays, property owner stories, and more!

 

  _____  


While we've already noted that it's not about the money, the "taxpayer cost"
is the one recurring theme that the Property Fairness Initiative's opponents
hammer away on as the main reason that it's harmful to the state.  There are
others, but they keep coming back to the money.

Let's look at that.

The first figure we heard was that it would cost taxpayers $3.5 to $4.5
billion in compensation alone.  Where did that number come from?

That initial number came from the Association of Washington Cities (AWC), a
lobbying organization for municipalities that was asked to build a "cost"
estimate for the urban areas of the state.  How did they determine that this
would be the cost to taxpayers within the urban growth boundaries?

AWC sent surveys to a representative sample of their member cities asking
them to develop estimates for the following categories:

*	Compensation for land use regulation imposed between 1996 and 2006
*	Cost for analyzing potential claims
*	Appraisal costs
*	Potential costs for litigation


That first category is an eye opener, because it is the dollar amount that
the cities are telling us they have already taken from private property
owners inside the urban growth areas of Washington!

When the Office of Financial Management (OFM) combined AWC's calculations
with those from the state agencies and counties, the total "taxpayer cost"
was stated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $8 billion.  Again, the
vast majority of the estimate is for compensating property owners for what
has already been taken from them.

There's something very important to keep in mind here.  When all of those
government entities were busy coming up with all of these regulations, they
certainly didn't care how much it was going to cost you, the property owner.
Now that it's time to pay the piper, they are not well pleased.

If they had taken costs to the property owner into account when they were
making the rules, then perhaps the rules would have been more sensible.
Because they weren't required to do that, and because they have been
unwilling to control themselves adequately and because our calls for reform
fell on deaf ears for years, Initiative 933 became necessary.  For years,
they have not thought they needed to listen to us.  We need to pass I-933
and make sure they are not only finally listening, but that they are also
following the will of the people who pay their salaries.

Oregon's experience demonstrates that the outrageously high cost estimates
are way beyond what happens in reality.  Most property owners simply want to
follow their dreams and not have unreasonable obstacles placed in their way
by government.  While there are a small minority of property owners who will
take unfair advantage of the new situation, most simply want to do
reasonable things and get on with their lives.  Those few who do wish to go
way beyond what's fair are finding that there are other controls not covered
by Oregon's Measure 37.  The same will hold true in Washington.

That dollar figure for compensation makes the assumption that every affected
property owner will show up at the government door demanding full monetary
compensation for their loss.  In reality, nearly all of these property
owners are going to be happy with being allowed to do what they had planned
to do all along.  Nearly all of these requests for relief are going to be
entirely reasonable.  Government agencies and property owners will have an
opportunity to sit down together and work things out to their mutual
satisfaction.  Actual monetary compensation will come only in those rare
cases where the community interest is so great that the community as a whole
is willing to compensate a particular private property owner for the
property use control or restriction.

Even if every single potential claim were to be filed and actually paid,
which won't happen, and even if the maximum possible payments were made,
which wouldn't happen, that high-end dollar estimate of $8 billion, spread
over six years, comes out to a maximum expense of $1.3 billion per year.
Not peanuts, perhaps, but when compared to other annual expenditures in
Washington, not all that unreasonable.

So . . . will I-933 cost taxpayers $8 billion?  Not by a long shot.  

It's not the cost that has I-933's opponents blowing smoke.  It's their fear
of the consequences of the open governance that I-933 requires of state,
county, and municipal governments.  They do not like the idea that it will
become more difficult to put new and ever more restrictive property use
restrictions on our backs.

Remember, inside the urban growth boundaries in just the past ten years
alone, government has taken $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion away from urban
property owners.  What makes us think that they want to stop now?

Vote YES on I-933 . . . put the brakes on runaway regulation.  Let all your
friends and neighbors know why they should join us in voting YES on the
Property Fairness Initiative, and encourage them to vote!



  _____  

Please join us in voting YES for I-933

If you wish to be added to or removed from this email list, please send your
request to messenger at supporting933.org.

  .

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.celestial.com/pipermail/capr-announce/attachments/20061102/5f611d71/attachment.html