PALMER - A local group is marshaling opposition to a ballot measure it says would put taxpayers on the hook if private property owners sue the government for laws that limit the ability to use their land.
Laura McClintock of Seattle-based McClintock Consulting fielded questions Wednesday at Palmer Chamber of Commerce about what Proposition 1 might mean to taxpayers in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Proposition 1 is a ballot initiative that will appear in the Oct. 2 municipal election. Modeled after Measure 37 that passed in Oregon in 2005, the measure seeks to compensate private property owners who have lost the value or use of their property due to restrictive land-use laws.
“I’ve seen this implemented … and I can tell you that the language is trouble. I don’t think anyone is saying there shouldn’t be provisions that protect private property owners,” McClintock said.
McClintock said the proposed measure doesn’t provide a clear process for handling claims that property value is lost or a way to prove lost property value.
Local property rights advocates Penny Nixon and Dennis Oakland under their political action committee Mat-Su Taxpayers last year kicked off the effort to put the initiative before voters. They collected the requisite signatures in September 2006, too late to put the measure on the October 2006 election ballot.
The measure would require the borough to compensate landowners for any loss of property value resulting from borough land rules, provided the regulation doesn’t aim to protect public health, public safety or alleviate a nuisance.
Oakland said the Mat-Su initiative, unlike what was passed in Oregon, would only apply to new laws.
“It’s to make them at least think twice about what they’re passing and what kind of effect it’s having on the property owner,” he said. “For instance, if they’re passing a law that says (Lazy Mountain farmer) Larry DeVilbiss can’t subdivide his farm - ever - he’s just lost (for example) $5 million. So they’d either have to pay him $5 million or waive the ordinance and let him subdivide.”
Palmer businesswoman Janet Kincaid said she doesn’t like the initiative’s language or its concept. A past member of the Mat-Su Platting Board, Planning Commission and Assembly, she said she believes the measure would hinder development.
“I don’t see a reason for it. When you’re on the Platting Board you constantly hear 'not in my backyard,’ ” Kincaid said. “We have very few regulations.”
She marshaled the effort to create Mat-Su Taxpayers Against Proposition 1, a group formed recently to fight the initiative. The group plans a grass-roots campaign against the measure.
“I feel very strongly that passing this would be a huge mistake. We would have to add staff to our law department, clearly. Everything would require legal review. Those with the biggest bucks would win,” Kincaid said.
Oakland said added legal staff would only be needed if the borough challenged claims that property owners should be compensated. The borough could avoid paying legal fees or compensation by waiving laws if property owners say the law unfairly limits use of their property.
“It’s going to be up to the claimant to file. The borough won’t have to defend itself … if they pass an extreme ordinance like that in the first place, they should pay for it,” Oakland said.
