Private Property Protection Act a scary proposition

Aug. 31, 2007

Spectrum/Darin Markwardt

Do you like your worms baked or fried?

This is the question Mat-Su Borough residents will need to answer in October if we pass Proposition 1.

Proposition 1, or the Private Property Protection Act, looks great on the outside (the title is fantastic), but when you look inside at the actual document you realize that Prop. 1 is nothing but a can of worms.

If passed, Prop. 1 will unleash a flood of bureaucratic red tape, lawsuits and tax increases.

Prop. 1 allows an individual to sue the Borough if he or she believes certain regulations are negatively affecting their property values. The Borough can either pay or waive the regulation in question. If the Borough fights a claim, then it (meaning you, the taxpayer) incurs the legal costs for both sides.

Here's an example. Let's say I live in Wasilla, and want to build a high-density housing complex in a neighborhood where such a practice is prohibited. I simply sue the Borough. The Borough then has three choices. It can fight the suit, pay the money demanded by the owner or waive the regulation prohibiting the complex.

If the Borough decides to either pay the owner or fight lawsuits or claims, then taxes will be raised. There is simply no other way to pay for the incredible costs. In Oregon alone this law has resulted in $19 billion worth of claims.

If, on the other hand, the Borough decides to waive the regulations then taxes will be raised. Why? Because another level of beauracracy will be needed just to administer the law.

It's a lose-lose initiative. No matter what, Prop. 1 will create more lawsuits, bureaucracy and red tape - the very thing it is supposed to stop.

Prop. 1 co-sponsor Penny Nixon defends this shoddy initiative by quoting the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: &#8220Nor shall private property be taken away for public use without just compensation.”

Excuse me? Since when did a neighborhood ordinance become a violation of the Fifth Amendment? Since when did the Valley's loose regulations constitute a government heist? Since when did Nixon's blatant disregard for the property values of others become a constitutional right?

If Nixon gets his way, then your neighbor can build a racetrack in the Snowgoose Pond subdivision. A gas station or pawnshop can be opened in the middle of Meadow Lakes or Equestrian Estates. A guy in Palmer can place a coal-bed methane pump in his backyard.

How do you think this will affect your property values? They will plummet. Yes, Prop. 1 will help your neighbor make a few quick bucks. But at what cost? The property value of the entire neighborhood will be destroyed.

Is that worth it?

Prop. 1 is also bad for business and real estate. Since all building and land acquisitions will become potential high-risk ventures, banks will not be prone to give loans.

Is that worth it?

No! None of the above consequences are worth it.

Proposition 1 is a shortsighted, selfishness initiative. It essentially says all that matters is the quick gold - to heck with the costs to my neighbors, my taxes, my future.

Folks, we cannot afford to let Proposition 1 pass. I urge you to call Mat-Su Taxpayers Against Prop 1 and ask what you can do to stop this initiative.

We must act now. There is simply too much at stake.

Darin Markwardt can be reached at darin.markwardt-@gmail.com.