Don't change rule in game

A Spectrum, by Kevin Sorensen

Last summer a proposed initiative was presented to the Mat-Su Borough for certification that had been signed by 12 property owners. Each owned from 40 to more than 600 acres in the core area. Most had, or their families had, owned property in the core area for more than 40 years.

The initiative would have required the borough to compensate the property owner if the borough restricted the land use in a way that caused an actual economic loss to the property owner.

You did not see anyone in front of Wal-Mart or Carrs collecting signature to get the initiative on the ballot. The borough would not certify the initiative and in doing so killed the initiative. The borough's legal opinion cited various reasons as to why the initiative should not go to the people. The primary reason was that it would cost the borough too much money. That rationale would presume that property owners would suffer economic losses that could be proven.

Presumably, the borough would only restrict land uses when there was a benefit that results from that restriction. So it becomes a rather simple question -- should the borough take a benefit and force certain property owners to suffer the losses?

The fundamental fairness of paying someone for what you take from them seemed obvious to many. I was rather disappointed that the initiative would not be going to the voters, who I believed would recognize the fairness involved.

Since the borough rejected putting the matter to the people, I figured that a provision could be legislatively enacted. Then it got real interesting. The reaction has been that the property owners will not have any economic loss.

So it goes round and round like this:

Q: If property owners have an economic loss because of a restriction placed on their property, should the property owners be compensated?

A: No. The borough cannot pay the cost of all the losses.

Q: Why should a minority of individual property owners absorb those losses?

A: The property owners should not suffer any economic losses.

Q: So what is the danger of enacting a compensation provision just in case?

A: The borough cannot pay the cost of all the losses.

So round and round we go. Placing substantial new restrictions on property is really like changing the rules in the middle of the game. What would assembly members think if someone else decided the rules on their pension plan should be changed so that they lose half its value and the benefit goes to someone else? What would the assembly members think if someone else decided their insurance coverage should be reduced in half after the premium is paid and someone else gets the benefit? They would consider it unacceptable.

Why are some afraid of the cost to the borough and not concerned about the costs to the individual property owners?

Kevin Sorensen is a Valley resident and owner of Palmer Realty.