Look for the hidden meanings of Prop. 1

The Mat-Su Borough Prop. 1 is a disaster. Please vote “no” Oct. 2.

If this passes, it will muddle every reasonable effort within local government to work effectively with communities on looming land use issues. If you read only what is on the ballot it is difficult to get the entire picture. Before voting, I encourage everyone to go the Borough’s Web site and look at the entire text of the ordinance. This proposition needs really close scrutiny because there is a huge hidden agenda. On the one hand it asks for property owner compensation if any number of regulations by local government affect property values, but it also states an alternative to compensation — modify, remove or don’t apply the regulations. It is a scare tactic, it is divisive and it is confusing.

The proposed ordinance includes community land use plans (which don’t have regulatory power anyway) in its list of things that will be open to compensation should a landowner perceive his or her property value to be negatively affected. The measure states: “Land use regulation (shall include) local government comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, land division ordinances and transportation ordinances.”

Our community on Lazy Mountain just went through an arduous process to develop a community plan. It was overwhelming approved. This wasn’t local government telling us what to do. The community initiated the planning process and was continually invited to provide feedback as the plan progressed. At the end, community members went through the plan chapter by chapter and voted on each one, making changes as a group along the way. It is not perfect and it wasn’t easy, but our plan recognizes that we have a community character we would like to preserve. If the community plan later sets the stage for a land use district with regulations, you can count on a hearty — but likely respectful — debate that seeks common ground regarding land use issues. How many other communities around the Borough are currently doing the same thing?

Prop. No. 1 has no such collaborative process and, if anything, pits neighbor against neighbor and individuals against government.

I would also encourage voters to find out more about a similar proposition in Oregon, where I believe residents are back at the drawing board because it has been unworkable. Supporters of Prop. 1 assert that local government can avoid those Oregon-type pitfalls by simply not developing land use ordinances, modifying them or not enforcing them. Is that really what we want? If this measure passes, local government could not pass a reasonable land use regulation that the majority of residents favor without either fearing a quagmire of litigation and potential compensation or wondering if how and when it can be enforced.

If local government cannot create or enforce any reasonable land use regulations because of this measure, I can envision all sorts of scenarios that could impact my property, my community and many others. The newspapers are full of them. I believe many Borough residents are concluding that reasonable land use regulations will protect their property values rather than diminish them. I am not aware of any extreme regulations in the works that would reduce property values, but the uncertainty that prevails by opening the door to compensation could cripple even the most limited efforts to maintain the quality and character of our communities.

It is also difficult to understand this proposition. The ballot states: “This law applies when a public entity enforces a new land use rule restricting the use of private real property (or interest therein) for public use or benefit.” It then states that if the fair market value is reduced, the owner shall be compensated. The proposed ordinance text states that “public benefit” includes, but is not limited to, actions taken by government not involving actual physical occupation of property such as creation of open space, green belts, viewscapes or increased tax revenues. What all is involved in figuring out just compensation and who is going to do it?

Land use and community growth are difficult issues and take a certain level of government support and effort. Even more importantly, they require community involvement. Systems we have in place now may not be perfect, but there are numerous checks in place to make sure planning processes are democratic, inclusive and hopefully thoughtful. I think this ballot measure takes us to a place of confusion, mistrust and litigation. We can do better and should send that message at the polls.

Lynn Fuller is a resident of the Palmer area