‘Yes’ on Prop. 1


Published on Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:03 PM AKDT

I have been reading advertisements and received several mailings about voting “no” on Borough Prop. 1. The latest was the ad paid for by the Mat-Su Valley Board of Realtors, which prompted this letter.

This has four bullets listed why people should vote no. One states Prop. 1 “will cost taxpayers millions of dollars to administer.” That will only happen if the Borough and municipalities pass new regulations that would be detrimental to private property owners. If Prop. 1 passes, will that be an excuse to increase government bureaucracy and say “I told you so?”

Another states that it is “is poorly written and will result in lawsuits that taxpayers cannot afford.” Again, only if new regulations were passed that would be detrimental to private property owners.

Another states that it “threatens private property rights and neighborhoods.” Again, only if new regulations are passed. I think there are regulations on the books now that protect private property rights and neighborhoods.

The last bullet says Prop. 1 “is bad for business and real estate.” This comment alone is enough for me to vote “yes” on Prop. 1. Prop. 1 protects the private property owners, not business and real estate, from any government agency passing new regulations that affect your property. I'm getting tired of Friends of Mat-Su, developers, Realtors and other big business influencing the Borough to pass regulations that benefit them, not the private individuals who pay taxes on their property.

How many times in the last few years have a large number of individual property owners testified against a proposed new or revised regulation at public hearings only to have it pass immediately without any consideration of the testimony by those individuals because of influence from these organizations? It's obvious that the Borough assembly does not listen to the people, only business and organizations that profit from the new regulations.

I think it's time for the people to let the government agencies know that the people should be able to voice their opinions and be listened to when the majority speak. Somebody once told me that people buy property and pay taxes on their property, but the Borough owns it. I think it's time for the people to own their property too — and time for these government agencies to listen to the little guys. Vote “yes” on Prop. 1.  

Nola Bragg

Wasilla

Copyright © 2009 Frontiersman

Comments

5 comment(s)

    Lefty wrote on Oct 2, 2007 12:07 PM:

    " Mr. Nixon, why does it irk you that the government is trying to protect all its citizens and not just the ones trying to profit? Just because a property owner can increase his property value by building a chlorine plant or a strip joint on it, doesn't mean it will increase the property values of his/her's neighbors. It will usually cause the rest of the neighborhood to decrease in value. That is why your proposition is flawed, it doesn't protect everyone from property owner's greed. "

    Concerned resident wrote on Sep 29, 2007 3:34 PM:

    " Mr. Nixon, at best you are severely confused. Eminent domain, a Federal law, already compensates for the taking of private property when it benefits the common good. Proposition 1 has *nothing* to do with property protection for the average citizen, so stop blowing smoke! It is a sweetheart deal for huge logging companies, big unscrupulous real estate developers, and their lawyers. If passed, it would be a grievous injustice against the people and taxpayers of the Mat Su Borough. I strongly urge everyone in the Borough to look at all the facts, read the ordinance itself, and vote No! "

    Penny Nixon, Sponsor wrote on Sep 28, 2007 3:28 PM:

    " Just what IS it about the individual ownership of private property that drives the left so batty? Can it be that all their glossy brochures, hysterical screeching and deliberate falsehoods cannot erase those terrible twelve words “…nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”? (5th Amendment, US Constitution.) Prop 1 merely puts this principle into law. "

    Penny Nixon, Sponsor wrote on Sep 28, 2007 3:26 PM:

    " I wrote PROP 1 after observing 5 years of public testimony opposing the boro's increasingly oppressive tactics resulting in skyrocketing taxes and inability to use property to store value for individual Americans, not for government or neighbors. Vote YES on PROP 1. "

    Please Read Prop 1 wrote on Sep 28, 2007 8:28 AM:

    " READ PROP 1: “the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein” ANY INTEREST THEREIN. Anytime, any land-use regulation is passed, good or bad, popular or unpopular, it is subject to claims because of those three words. There is nothing in Prop 1 to stop frivolous law suits. There is nothing to prevent severe abuse. Prop 1 forces the taxpayers to pay the costs of every suit, legitimate or not and the taxpayers have no voice in those suits. Good Intentions don’t always make Good Law. Vote No on Prop 1. "

WRITE A COMMENT

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.

Comments must be approved by an editor before appearing on the Web site. Editors review submitted comments periodically during the day for offensive or off-topic content before posting. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
Current Word Count:
   

Classifieds

  • View All Ads
  • Place and Ad Online!
  • Call: (907) 352-2250
  • Write: 5751 E. Mayflower Ct., Wasilla AK 99654

Jobs

View All Jobs

Homes

View All Homes

Autos

View All Autos


Community Links

City of Wasilla
City of Wasilla News
City of Palmer
City of Houston
Borough News
Borough Web Site



Make Us Your Homepage