What do you do if you want to write a Spectrum column to illustrate your opinion but find the facts do not support your viewpoint?

Why, you ignore the facts and write the piece anyway. And this is exactly what Darin Markwardt did in his Spectrum column of Aug. 31 attacking Prop. 1 on the Mat-Su Borough’s Oct. 2 ballot, the Private Property Protection Act. He obviously did not read the proposition or else chose to ignore what it actually says.

The Private Property Protection Act will be on the ballot and was printed in the Frontiersman Aug. 28 in its entirety. Please read it yourself and see what it really says. “If a public entity enacts or enforces a new land use regulation that restricts the use of private property or any interest therein, for public use or benefit and has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein, then the owner of the property shall be paid just compensation,” reads Section 2 Item 1 of the act. Note, it specifies “new” regulation.

Isn’t this only fair?

Say that times are getting hard, there aren’t many jobs available to support your family so you decided to go into business for yourself. You find a parcel of property either zoned for a gas station or if not zoned allows a gas station in the land use restrictions for that property. Being a prudent person, you double check with the Borough to be sure you can put a gas station there. You get your survey done, order the needed material and begin to build. Things are going well, you’re on your way to getting your business up and running when one day an employee of the Borough shows up with a cease and desist order. He says the Borough has just put in a new ordinance that says all gas stations have to be located in a new zone the Borough has just created and you cannot have your new business on the property you purchased for that purpose.

That’s not fair.

Don’t you think that if you have lost the right to use the property for the purpose for which it was purchased that you should be compensated for the time and money spent and the lost opportunity to make a living for your family? Remember, the key word here is “new.” The Borough put in new regulations after you purchased the property and started your project. Read Prop. 1 and see it for yourself.

The more than $19 billion that residents have demanded in Oregon (for a similar law enacted there in 2004) has drawn a lot of attention here in Alaska. This clearly reflects the damage that has been done to private property owners in that state and shows how badly we need the protection of Prop. 1 before it happens here.

An acquaintance was telling me about an 80-acre wooded parcel of land in Oregon that he bought planning on cutting the timber and clearing the land for a farm and home site. First, the government decided that no timber could be cut, then that the land could not be subdivided and he could not build in the land. Of course, he was still expected to pay taxes on the property. The last I heard, the government made a concession and said he could park a motor home on the land for 60 days a year.

Some farmers in Oregon could not build a home on the land they farm because of the mandatory $80,000 farm income requirements to be allowed to build a farm dwelling. This income standard was so high that 80 percent of farmers did not qualify.

Measure 37 was sorely needed in Oregon and Prop. 1 is needed in the Mat-Su Borough to insure private property owners’ rights are protected.

Please read Prop. 1 and vote Oct. 2 to protect our property rights.

Mary Psenak

Palmer