Proposition 2:

A State of Confusion

By Senator Brent Hill

In addition to the slate of candidates on the November ballot, we will be faced with two propositions, two proposed constitutional amendments and an advisory vote. None of these choices is more confusing than Proposition 2.

Proposition 2 is being sold as a way to protect your property from the abusive exercise of the power of eminent domain, but the effects of Proposition 2 are just the opposite. Knowing how highly we value the rights of private property, the promoters of this initiative are exploiting our allegiance to property rights to advance their own agenda. 

The Background

In June 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court shocked the nation when it ruled that local governments can abuse powers of eminent domain by taking away property for the benefit of private development simply to increase tax revenue. The court’s decision in Kelo v. New London threatened property rights across the country, but the court provided that state legislatures could restrict eminent domain in their own states.

The Idaho Legislature responded immediately, passing laws limiting the powers of eminent domain in Idaho. In fact, Proposition 2 exactly copies much of the language that the Legislature has already enacted. The Idaho Legislature has already solved the problem that Proposition 2 claims to address.

The Hidden Agenda

Why then are the promoters of Proposition 2 still pursuing its passage? Because Proposition 2 goes far beyond what its proponents want you to understand. It seeks to destroy future planning and organized development within our cities and counties. The out-of-state interests who have financed Proposition 2 view planning, zoning, and other land use ordinances as government intrusion. They want to force local governments into choosing one of two undesirable options: 1) either permit everyone to do whatever he wants with his land, no matter how much it harms others, or 2) face paying landowners for any land use ordinance that might affect the value of the land. Proposition 2 would force local taxpayers to foot the bill for claims against cities and counties.  

An Example

City planning would be halted because any zoning regulation that would prevent your neighbor from turning his property into a feed lot, a scrap yard, a high-rise apartment, or even a porn shop would subject the city’s taxpayers to huge liabilities. City zoning laws protect you currently, but not if Proposition 2 passes. Your property rights would be violated under Proposition 2 because owners/developers would be able to do whatever they wanted on their land, no matter what that does to the value of your property. If the city tried to protect you by regulating such development, it would have to pay these developers for not allowing them to do whatever they pleased. To quote the Association of Idaho Cities: “The initiative could be devastating to planned growth and development in Idaho and financially crippling to cities and counties.”

Conclusions

Property rights are fundamental to a free society. They are embedded in the ideals of the American people. Any threat to property rights should be considered a threat to liberty itself.

But Proposition 2 is not about protecting your property from being taken as a result of abusive eminent domain. The Idaho Legislature has already established those protections. People who resent government at all levels are using Proposition 2 to spawn confusion and fear among the voters. Through their manipulation, they seek to undermine the very order that makes our communities great and replace it with a state of confusion. 

Do Not Be Deceived

You need not accept anyone’s interpretation of Proposition 2. Study it yourself on the Secretary of State’s website: www.idsos.idaho.gov. Then cast your vote based on the truth rather than confusion.