Prop. 1 is needed to protect your rights

I support Mat-Su Borough Prop. 1 and here’s why: It’s our land, and we should not have to ask permission to use it!

What made this country great is freedom and opportunity. Our economy has been built by individuals who recognize opportunity and then use their freedom to purchase and develop resources. In the last few years local government has run amuck because a few people want to control everybody else by restricting the use of their land — for whatever reasons — without having to reimburse the owner for taking his ownership. You don’t have to look far to see examples of this. There are a lot of them.

The recent passage of land use permits (building permits) by the assembly, for instance, is one. Another is the last Palmer annexation plan. What other motive did the proponents have in trying to annex so much new land than trying to control someone else’s land without paying for it? Annexation proponents weren’t out to provide city services to affected residents, they were seeking to expand the range of their restrictive regulations and at the same time increase revenue. If they really feel strongly about it then let them take the risk, make the investment and buy it instead of stealing it by regulation. In effect, if you take away a person’s right to use his property you have taken some of his ownership. It’s only right that he should be fairly compensated.

Some have decided it’s too expensive to purchase land rights themselves, but if they can get government to do it for them, either by regulation or by eminent domain, they can effectively control a neighbor’s property without having to pay for it. That is just wrong, whether it comes from a developer trying to take someone else’s land for his road or a renter trying to preserve a view he doesn’t own.

Consider the farmer/homesteader who, because of rising taxes, needs to sell some of his land to keep it from being confiscated by the Borough. The money from the sale may keep the tax collector happy for a few years, but eventually the taxes outpace his income again. This time, when he wants to sell more of his land he can’t because those owners he sold to now want to preserve (restrict) his remaining land for their personal viewshed or their personal park. They’re worried that maybe he’ll sell to a box store or maybe he’ll subdivide again and they don’t want more houses.

No matter what it is an owner wants to create, there’s someone out there who won’t like it. While we may not like the color our neighbor paints his house or we may prefer looking at trees and fields as opposed to rows of houses, we could make the case that his actions will either deflate or inflate our property values. Both could be negative, but that doesn’t give us the right to steal our neighbor’s land or his rights to it to prevent him from using it. Too many lawmakers rush to outlaw or regulate something previously perfectly acceptable to appease the offended few, never mind that there are already nuisance laws in place to deal with such problems on a case-by-case basis.

At what point should the original owner lose his rights to his remaining land, and why shouldn’t he be paid for that loss? We can offer to buy his land or pay him not to do whatever it is we don’t like, but that’s basically where our rights stop. If he creates a nuisance that devalues our property, we already have adequate legal remedies.

The real question becomes, when do the desires of neighbors become more important than an owner’s right to his property? Certainly there are some issues so serious in nature that the greater public good may need to outweigh individual rights. There should be a standard to decide which issues meet that standard. I think there already is. Overriding the constitution should require a two-thirds majority, not just approval of a few vocal activists and their representatives. Good regulations have no problem getting approved by voters in regular elections and conflicts with the constitution should be decided in court.

There is a term for those who feel the desires of the community supercede the rights of the individual — communist. There are those who tout centralized planning, claiming a need for plan our growth. What they’re really saying is that owners (the unwashed masses) can’t be trusted to plan their own property, that somehow a government planner, or your neighbor, knows the best use of your land, but certainly not you. Therefore, you need to ask their permission to do anything with it. Once started down that road of needing permission before acting, where does it end?

Every new law or regulation represents a loss of freedom. Some people place little value on their loss if the result is that they gain control over other people. That’s shortsighted. I value the freedom and agency God gave me, and I feel a need to defend that agency from continual erosion generally resulting from government intrusion. I value the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution that protects my right to property. It’s a protection of not just the right to put my name on it and pay taxes on it, but to use it for my benefit. None of this local conflict would even be an issue if the regulatory restrictions were placed on land prior to its original conveyance from government ownership into private hands. Unfortunately, it’s too late for that. Those who buy lots in zoned areas or covenanted subdivisions may be happy with their chosen restrictions. At least they knew what to expect. The problem exists when they try to apply those same restrictions to others against their will.

A good friend in political office once said he could tell how good a job he was doing based on who was making the most noise in opposition. Just look at who is squawking the loudest against Prop. 1. It is those who are intent on further regulating your property. We did not pay for land so that we could ask permission to use it or to make our own decisions.

What Prop. 1 intends to do, and has demonstrated to be effective at in Oregon as Measure 37, is to prevent new regulations from stealing our land rights without paying for them. Too bad it’s not retroactive! If passed, this will restore the proper balance between the rights of owners and other interested parties. It will not increase taxes unless our elected officials are determined to take our rights away. If they feel so strongly about the need for a new regulation then they should be prepared to compensate those whose rights they are confiscating. This will likely reduce the proliferation of frivolous regulations, but if the will of the people is behind a particular regulation then they shouldn’t mind paying its cost.

I applaud Mr. Nixon and Mr. Oakland for their efforts to defend our rights.

Pat Marley is a Wasilla resident.