Meeting 111695 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

for the same reason. Everywhere, it seems, the theme is the same: govern- ment trampling on and impoverishing mom -and -pop landowners. Indeed, property rights proponents fuel the notion that the movement is a fight to get big government off the backs of the little guys: And that's one element of it. But that's hardly the whole story. Real estate, ranching, agricultural and timber interests, among others, have a big stake in the outcome of land use deci- sions and have funded property rights lobbying efforts and court cases on the state and national level. Several of the directors of the Florida Legal Foundation, for instance, are exec- utives of agribusinesses that own hun- dreds of thousands of acres of Florida land. The foundation's only mission is to protect private property rights. Just two years old, the foundation spent nearly $270,000 last year to run a two- person office and help small landowners take .governments to court over takings issues. "It is recognized that if an adverse prece- dent can be established in a case against a small landowner, it can be used against large landowners," says Michael Rosen, executive director of the foundation. In Washington State, businesses underwrote the signature - gathering effort that sent the compensation measure to the legislature. "The feeling was they wouldn't have gotten anywhere without industry money," says state Senator Mary Margaret Haugen, an opponent of the measure. A second petition drive by opponents prevented the legislature from enacting the measure on its own and put it instead on the November ballot. The Committee for Initiative 164 — formed by the property rights propo- nents —had spent $280,881 as of mid - July. The top contributor was the building industry's association, which kicked in $52,000. Next was a real estate brokers' group, which provided $25,000. The top seven contributions from timber companies came to $54,500. But while expensive industry lobby- ing campaigns and mom - and -pop hor- ror stories keep the issue bubbling across the country, the question of just how deep property rights sentiment runs is an open one. "It's a real issue, and real political forces have coalesced and achieved a surprising amount of success," says Kayden, "but I'm not convinced it's a broadly based public concern that government is routinely 30 G O V E R N I N G October 1995 Property rights proponents say their goal is not to enrich landowners, but to get governments to stop over - regulating. trampling on property rights. It's less a groundswell than a more narrowly sup- ported vested interest group's agenda." A citizen's initiative on takings in Ari- zona was rejected handily when it was put to the voters last year. It was not even a compensation measure; it called for the attorney general to set guidelines for what constituted a taking and for state agencies to use the guidelines to do a cost - benefit analysis of regulations. In Washington State, opponents of the property rights compensation measure on this November's ballot needed 90,000 sig- natures to delay enactment of the measure by the legislature and put it to the voters. They got more than 230,000 signatures. New Hampshire state Senator Richard Russman tried to convince Congress that the takings legislation being considered on Capitol Hill could create an expen- sive, unnecessary new entitlement pro- gram. "Beyond a few isolated anecdotal accounts," he argued before a House sub- committee, "there are no studies or evi- dence to support the notion that the judi- cial branch of government has abdicated its role in protecting private property owners from overreaching government regulation." bile compensation legislation has been slow in coming, property rights proponents say that isn't the point anyway. Their real goal, they insist, is not to force governments to enrich individual landowners, but to get govern- ments to stop over - regulating. "The objec- tive is to get government to clean up its act and to stop taking private property unless it's absolutely necessary," says Richard Sanders, a lawyer retained by the propo- nents of the Washington State initiative. Indeed, property rights bills are start- ing to have the effect that proponents want and environmentalists feared. Gov- ernments are hesitating, uncertain which regulations will trigger payment or court action. Even if they are regulating prop- erly under the laws, they worry they still may have to justify their actions in court. This creates a dilemma for local gov- ernments in states such as Florida and - Washington. The localities are required by state growth management laws to limit development densities, yet state property rights compensation laws may end up punishing them for doing so. Almost immediately after Florida's compensation law took effect in May, West Palm Beach Assistant County Attorney Bob Banks recommended to the county commissioners that they scrap a plan to reduce development in an agri- cultural reserve area east of the Ever- glades. They took his advice. "We couldn't downzone the property without some possibility of being subjected to the new law," says Banks. Florida's law is ambiguous:. It says if a government "inor- dinately burdens" a landowner through its action, it must pay compensation. Defining that phrase will be a matter for the courts to hash out the next few years. Fort Lauderdale was considering mod- ernizing its zoning codes. It has halted the process, even though it had already paid consultants several hundred thou- sand dollars. Until the city can figure out how the new state law will be inter- preted, city leaders are reluctant to get tripped up by it. The chilling effect in Florida is more pronounced in some counties than in oth- ers. But everyone is concerned about changing existing regulations or putting new ones in place. The advice circulating is for planners to bronze their zoning codes and sit tight. "We're in the position_._ of not wanting to do anything that will adversely affect property owners, even if it will benefit others," says Mark Bamebey, senior assistant county attorney in Manatee County. "Significant changes in codes could result in a large liability without even blinking an eye. There are just too many questions about the law." If the property rights revolution has achieved little else so far, it has startled governments into reviewing their routine regulatory actions. States and localities that may not have thought they were stepping over the line when regulating landowners are looking again. "'There has been insensitivity in the regulatory com- munity to the deep feeling that govern- ment regulators are going too far in some cases," says Harvard's Kayden. "If the wake -up call was not delivered earlier, it certainly has been delivered now."