[Capr-announce] I-933 . . . It's not 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. 

 

  _____  


Much of the attention given to the Property Fairness Initiative revolves
around compensation cost estimates.  Far less attention has been paid to the
initiative's far more important open governance provisions.  It's those
provisions that provide the property rights protections that every property
owner needs, and it's those provisions that provide us with a more open
governance process that we can access.

There's long been a strong perception that government agencies have been far
too quick to add regulations that harm landowners, in part because the
agencies do not have to consider the financial or opportunity cost to the
property owner.  The following provisions from Section 2 of I-933 require
government agencies to consider and document the potential impacts of a
proposed regulation of property, as well as alternatives to that regulation.

(1) To avoid damaging the use or value of private property, prior to
enacting or adopting any ordinance, regulation, or rule which may damage the
use or value of private property, an agency must consider and document:

(a) The private property that will be affected by the action;

(b) The existence and extent of any legitimate governmental purpose for the
action;

(c) The existence and extent of any nexus or link between any legitimate
government interest and the action;

(d) The extent to which the regulation's restrictions are proportional to
any impact of a particular property on any legitimate government interest,
in light of the impact of other properties on the same governmental
interests;

(e) The extent to which the action deprives property owners of economically
viable uses of the property;

(f) The extent to which the action derogates or takes away a fundamental
attribute of property ownership, including, but not limited to, the right to
exclude others, to possess, to beneficial use, to enjoyment, or to dispose
of property;

(g) The extent to which the action enhances or creates a publicly owned
right in property;

(h) Estimated compensation that may need to be paid under this act; and

(i) Alternative means which are less restrictive on private property and
which may accomplish the legitimate governmental purpose for the regulation,
including, but not limited to, voluntary conservation or cooperative
programs with willing property owners, or other nonregulatory actions.


Under these provisions, government agencies are required to consider these
points and to document their consideration.  They are not explicitly
required to act on their assessment, but if they opt to proceed with a
regulatory approach, affected property owners will have a public record to
use as a basis for participating in the process, or should there be no
suitable alternative, to base litigation on.

One of the most important things to consider is that the only mention of
compensation is where the agency has to document its estimate of how much
they think they would have to pay if someone used the compensation
provisions of I-933 to seek relief for the impacts of the regulation on
private property.

The final provision is perhaps one of the key points in this section.
Government is required to consider and document alternatives to regulation
that can satisfy the goals of the proposed action.  Once the agency has done
this, the public can put forward still more alternatives that would meet the
regulatory goals, which would become part of the public record and provide a
basis for citizens in working with government to develop non-regulatory
alternatives.

Putting these nine points together into a problem-solving approach, we have
a means for government and private property owners to build creative
non-regulatory solutions to fit a broad range of ecosystem and land use
issues.  We can use an enacted I-933 as a vehicle for maintaining our
private property rights and protecting our ecosystems with balance.

While some may see the Property Fairness Initiative as swatting a fly with a
sledge hammer, we see it as a strong tool for bringing agencies and citizens
together to solve real problems in ways that don't harm people or the
ecosystems we live in.

Wouldn't you say this is a fair approach to managing land use issues?

  _____  

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/20061026/3645ce94/attachment-0001.html