Valley groups unite against Prop. 1

WASILLA — A quartet of local agencies say Mat-Su Borough Prop. 1 on the Oct. 2 ballot is a can of worms nobody should want to fish with.

Cook Inlet Region Inc., the Mat-Su Homebuilder’s Association, Mat-Su Taxpayers Against Prop. 1 and Mat-Su Valley Board of Realtors presented a united front Tuesday against the ballot measure. At a press conference at the Greater Wasilla Chamber of Commerce building, the groups claimed the Private Property Protection Act — Prop. 1 — is poorly written, vague and opens the Borough and municipalities up to a flood of lawsuits and monetary claims.

Prop. 1 is “a poorly drafted measure that would drop property values, “said Barbara Donatelli, senior vice president of administration and government relations for CIRI. “Bureaucrats would decide who’s following laws with little input [from the public].”

Modeled after Oregon’s Measure 37, Prop. 1 requires government agencies compensate landowners for new land use regulations that have a detrimental affect on their property values. Prop. Mat-Su Valley residents Penny Nixon and Dennis Oakland sponsor 1.

While the spirit of Prop. 1 may be to protect private property rights, its language is dangerous and too ambiguous to be applied accurately or fairly, said Janet Kincaid, chairperson for Mat-Su Taxpayers Against Prop. 1.

“We consider it a can of worms,” she said. “It’s a very bad proposition. … It’s [applied by a landowner’s] perceived loss of value.”

Dealing with unknowns like an individual’s perception of how a land use regulation is harmful is what has made Oregon’s Measure 37 result in $19 billion in claims since it was passed in 2004, she said.

As a member of the Mat-Su Borough Assembly, Cindy Bettine said she is concerned how Prop. 1 would affect some of the smaller areas of the Borough as they begin to enact land use regulations. At Port MacKenzie, residents are considering drafting a comprehensive plan for their community. With a large prison on the way, residents want to know how to handle issues like lighting and creating buffer zones between the prison and the surrounding area.

Big Lake is also in need of reworking its comprehensive plan, she said.

“It’s a huge recreation community and they have many trails that are not dedicated,” she said, adding that attempting to dedicate those trails after Prop. 1 passes would be difficult.

Those aggressively opposed to Prop. 1 are “missing the boat,” said Oakland, one of the sponsors of the ballot question.

While it was modeled after the Oregon law, Prop. 1 is not the same, he said. What makes Measure 37 a bad law is that it’s retroactive, meaning anyone can make a claim for any land use regulation ever enacted. Prop. 1 applies only to new regulation.

The bulk of the $19 billion in claims in Oregon are retroactive, Oakland said.

“Prop. 1 only affects legislation that hasn’t been written yet,” he said, adding that the groups aligned against Prop. 1 have “been misled on what this really is. They’re using the ‘scare the people with the lawyers and high taxes’ bit.”

Local Realtors “strongly supports private property rights,” said Russell Joyce of Lee Realty and president of the Mat-Su Valley Board of Realtors. “We understand property values are best determined by the market” and not by individual property owners.

Jeff Clements of Great Northern Homes and president of the Mat-Su Homebuilder’s Association said his worry is that Prop. 1 could throw a wrench into the Valley’s fairly stable economy.

“Our economy’s healthy,” he said. “Prop. 1 could end this. It will be increasingly difficult to gain approval for housing development.”

Oakland disagrees. Simply because someone doesn’t want a development on a neighboring property is not enough to make a claim under Prop. 1, he said.

“A subdivision’s not a nuisance,” he said, adding someone who wants to develop land “can do anything they want. You wouldn’t have a valid claim if you were next door to a subdivision. [To make a claim] you would have to show harm.”

Kincaid said there is a large difference between what Oakland and Prop. 1 supporters say the intent of the law is and what it actually says. She also believes some could use Prop. 1 and the threat of making a claim to intimidate the Borough or other government agency to back off making land use policy.

Prop. 1 is needed because the Borough and municipalities are out of control and take too many liberties with private property rights, Oakland said. “We have all the regulations we need.”

Asked to predict how he feels voters will support Prop. 1 on Tuesday, Oakland was not confident. “It’s hard to say, but sometimes the little guy wins.”

Contact Greg Johnson at 352-2268 or greg.johnson@frontiersman.com.