Read Prop. 1 and decide for yourself

Mat-Su Borough Prop. 1 advocates are in full battle gear. They can no longer hide behind its catchy title, Private Property Protection Act. Mat-Su Valley residents have begun to ask questions about Prop. 1 – and those questions elicit troubling answers.

In response, the Prop. 1 advocates have accused anti-Prop. 1 advocates of engaging in fear mongering and writing opinions that the facts do no support.

I beg to differ.

Prop. 1 advocates say the act will only affect new land use regulation passed by the Borough assembly after October.

Wrong.

Nowhere in Prop. 1 does it state the date after which the new act will take effect. No, in this poorly worded proposition the law applies to any and all “new property regulations.”

Talk about a field day for lawyers. The word “new” means nothing and everything. “ New” could apply to land use regulations enacted after the property was acquired. This could mean that if a person owned the land before a certain regulation was passed, then that person can sue the Borough. Remember, the taxpayer carries all the expense of the lawyers fees.

Many people in the Valley have land that was acquired before statehood. Most, if not all, of the land use regulations in the Valley are therefore “new.”

Even Prop. 1 sponsors admit that the single word “new” is ambiguous, but they claim that officials can rectify the mistake after the bill’s passage.

Wrong.

This is an initiative. Either it all passes — billion dollar flaws and all — or it doesn’t. No matter how well intentioned, Prop. 1 applies to far more than future land use regulations; it applies to every single Borough land use regulation. This means that your neighbor can still sue the Borough and place a cement company in his backyard. This means that the property value of the entire neighborhood, including your own property, will plummet. This will result in numerous lawsuits, all incurred at taxpayer expense.

Prop. 1 advocates claim that the above will not happen. In their eyes, everyone will rejoice at the prospect of a neighborhood cement company. In their eyes, no one will be upset by high-density houses across the street. In the happy land envisioned by Prop. 1 supporters, everyone will accept the decrease in their property values and in their quality of life.

Prop. 1 sponsors ignore the fact that the ballot question allows these very people who are affected by the cement company or high density housing to sue to Borough. This will result in thousands of claims, as Valley residents sue the Borough for losses to their property values. Even if the Borough pays you for the property value damage, the situation will still remain the same — the cement company will not have to move and your property value will still be decreased.

You won’t hear that from Prop. 1 supporters.

You also won’t hear that Measure 37, the Oregon proposition copied by Prop. 1 sponsors, is so onerous that Oregonians are again going to the ballot to undo many of the problems created by Measure 37.

No, Prop. 1 supporters will not tell you the truth about their proposition. Don’t take my word for it. Research Prop. 1 for yourself. Find out who is telling the truth. Look into Oregon’s Measure 37. Look at the consequences. Look up Measure 49, the new Oregon proposition that rectifies some of the chaos created by Measure 37.

Ask yourself if you want to recreate Measure 37’s damage. If you don’t, vote “no” on Borough Prop. 1.

Darin Markwardt can be reached at darin.markwardt@

gmail.com.