A frightening proposition

July 10, 2007

Editorial

Context can mean everything in politics.

Author Samuel Clemens once said there are three kinds of lies: “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.” If a pair of local activists and the Mat-Su Taxpayers Association have their way, property owners in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough will have their rights, damned rights, and statistics.

Borough voters in October will decide the fate of Proposition 1, also dubbed the Private Property Protection Act. In a nutshell, approval of the act would allow private property owners to be compensated by public entities (city, borough, special district) enacting land use regulation that would detrimentally affect their property values.

For example, should the borough assembly zone a parcel of land for industrial use to build a new gravel pit, those owning property around that pit could potentially sue. The borough would be liable to pay those property owners by whatever amount the gravel pit could reduce their property values. It doesn't matter how appropriate the land use is for the area or how the pit would benefit the borough overall.

Nobody likes to be told what he/she can or cannot do on his/her land. To a reasonable extent, we agree. Choice is one of the backbones of a free market society. Restaurants shouldn't be bound by laws dictating whether they allow smoking or not in their establishments. A slaughterhouse should not be located at the center of an urban residential area. Adult entertainment establishments should not be housed near schools. It wouldn't make much sense to locate a pit bull breeding farm next to the neighborhood day care.

Even industrial land uses, like gravel pits, are appropriate for some areas.

In this case, one's rights can make a wrong for all. Hogtying the borough, a city or any special district in how it makes public land use policy will result in a chaotic, expensive system no agency could possibly afford.

There is no language in this ballot question about how an entity is to determine that a land use decision could be detrimental to any particular landowner, nor how the borough would generate the money to compensate or litigate claims. Under the gravel pit example, let's say five nearby property owners make claims against the borough, local officials would have three choices:

€ Just pay the claims.

€ Litigate the claims.

€ Reverse the decision to allow the gravel pit - in which case taxpayers could still be on the hook to compensate the owner of the gravel pit property. Under this ordinance, a reversal like this would then have a detrimental effect on the value of the pit property.

We elect our borough assembly, city councils and other boards to represent us in making important land use decisions. Should every decision be subject to monetary payouts and/or litigation, we'll be left with a system that does nothing to protect and enforce good, strong, responsible land use regulation. If we're not happy with that, we have a recourse that doesn't involve bankrupting local government at the expense of taxpayers - we elect new representation.

Rather than protecting personal property rights, this ballot initiative is driven by greed and allows individual landowners to hold their neighbors and fellow taxpayers hostage. It's bad public policy and should frighten all Mat-Su Borough residents.