Battle lines drawn over Prop. 1

Aug. 26, 2007

By Russell Stigall/Frontiersman

MAT-SU - Ambiguous language in the proposed Private Property Protection Act on the Oct. 2 ballot could allow gravel pits and apartment complexes to locate next to Mat-Su Valley homes.

Also called Proposition 1, the act is sponsored by locals Penny Nixon and Dennis Oakland of the Mat-Su Taxpayers Association. Proposition 1 was written as an effort halt the Mat-Su Borough passing &#8220extreme” land use regulations by making the Borough pay landowners for any reduction in property valuation that results from its actions, Oakland said.

Another group, Mat-Su Taxpayers Against Proposition 1, believes the ballot question is ambiguous and could leave it to the Borough to sort out a true definition, said Kevin Brown, campaign manager for the group.

&#8220It could take years of taxpayer money just to figure out what it all means,” Brown said.

One example of ambiguity Brown cites is the proposition's lack of a definition of new regulations. The ordinance states landowners should be compensated when "a public entity enacts or enforces a new land use regulation." However, it doesn't say if regulations are considered new only if passed after Proposition 1 is passed in October, or if regulations are considered new if they were passed any time after the land was purchased, Brown said.

Oakland said the latter is not the intent of the proposition. While a similar law enacted in Oregon allows people to file claims against the state for pre-existing laws, Proposition 1 would affect laws that went into effect after the October election, Oakland said.

&#8220It doesn't repeal laws,” he said.

Brown said Nixon and Oakland may have had the best intentions when drafting Proposition 1, but the execution of the ballot question is wrong.

&#8220Voters have to deal with what we have, not what was intended; not what we may wish the proposition to be, but the nightmare scenario that is sitting in front of us right now,” Brown said.

Oregon passed its regulatory takings initiative in 2004, called Measure 37. Since then, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development has received 6,750 claims for private property protection, according to state documentation. More than $19 billion in compensation has been requested in these claims. Measure 37 has no funding mechanism to pay the claims, so the state instead waives any disputed land use regulation as a default reaction, said Michael Morrissey of the Oregon DLCD Measure 37 division.

"Measure 37 has been a source of great frustration for proponents and opponents and the government trying to deal with it," Morrissey said. "It has not been successful."

Measure 37 has resulted in 200 lawsuits against the state since 2004, Morrissey said. The lawsuits come from claimants and, in response, their neighbors. Morrissey said Oregon is being hardest hit by claims on farmland and prime forest.

Writing an ordinance like Proposition 1 is complicated, Brown said.

&#8220[Nixon and Oakland] just copied a majority of the law from Oregon, problems and all. So we are guaranteed to have all of the same lawsuits,” Brown said.

Oakland said he and other proponents of Proposition 1 saw the Mat-Su Borough heading in the same direction as Oregon a few years back where Oregon was adopting more and more restrictive land use regulation.

&#8220It will get so bad you can't build a dog house on your property without getting a permit,” Oakland said.

Oregon's Measure 37 was the reaction to stringent land use regulations, Oakland said. He fears this same type of political swing could happen in the Valley.

&#8220What we are trying to prevent in the Mat-Su Borough is another Measure 37,” Oakland said.

Oakland said Proposition 1 will not prevent the Borough from passing new regulations, just that the Borough must keep in mind claims may be filed against it.

&#8220All they have to do is not pass extreme regulations that will cause people to file claims,” he said. &#8220It won't cost them anything if they don't pass stupid regulations. [Proposition 1} will make the Borough think twice before they pass extreme regulations.”

Even if the Borough pays no claims, Brown said taxpayers will still foot the bill to administer the proposition.

&#8220Even if every [claim] is waived this is going to cost millions of dollars in administrative costs,” Brown said, adding the proposition would require the Mat-Su Borough and municipalities to hire more lawyers and add staff positions. &#8220Voters will get to pay for another layer of bureaucracy.”

Oakland expects the Proposition will have a minimal effect on Borough staffing.