Archived Story
Thursday, October 5, 2006
Local voters will have the opportunity in November to protect their property from inappropriate takings from the government.
Measure O will amend the county charter to prohibit the county from taking property from a private owner without consent and then turning it over to another private developer.
Once upon a time we didn't need such protections. The wording of the Fifth Amendment was believed to mean that when a government uses its powers of eminent domain -- forcing a private land owner to sell his or her land to the government -- that it be for "public use": a highway, courthouse, or school, for example.
Unfortunately, greedy governments began arguing that anything that improves the economy of a community (and their tax rolls), like a large retail store, counted as a public benefit. Therefore, governments could force a private entity to sell its land to them and then turn around and sell it to another private entity to develop.
In a shocking decision last year, the Supreme Court declined to enforce the wording of the Fifth Amendment, pushing the issue back to state and local governments.
Measure O only affects the county government's behavior. The City of Barstow's powers of eminent domain are not restricted by this amendment.
Proposition 90, a statewide initiative, would restrict the behavior by the City of Barstow, which might explain why Barstow Mayor Dale spoke in favor of Measure O and against Proposition 90 at the State of the City Address recently.
Proposition 90 extends the protections against eminent domain abuse across the state. But it goes even further; the initiative would require governments to reimburse property owners for "significant" losses if new regulations are passed or actions are taken that restrict owners in their abilities to develop their land as they see fit, with exceptions for existing regulations and health and safety issues.
There's a reason why some government officials are perfectly fine about Measure O but in a panic about Proposition 90. Eminent domain is only one tool in the government's toolbox when it comes to manipulating and inhibiting people's property rights. The government doesn't have to use eminent domain to bring about harm to a property owner. If a property owner buys land and decides he wants to build a bunch of homes on it, and the local government decides it doesn't fit its vision du jour, the government can simply change the zoning for the parcel and suddenly only a handful of homes may be built there. This is called "downzoning," one of the governmental abuses Proposition 90 seeks to eliminate.
Opponents of Proposition 90 are raising scare tactics, promising all sorts of lawsuits against government agencies and rising taxes should it come to pass. They're probably correct about the lawsuits, but that's because many governments have been rather flip about property rights, putting their own "vision" of what the community should be ahead of allowing consumer demand and basic economics to play out. Under Proposition 90, governments will actually have to think about the consequences of their decisions and will have to reimburse people when they restrict their property rights.
The Web site in opposition to Proposition 90 actually argues that homeowner associations will no longer be able to control what their neighbors do. This is supposed to be an argument against Proposition 90? Is there anything in America that has become a bigger symbol of property rights abuse than the oppressive rules of homeowner associations?
If we're going to demand that we have a right to our property (Measure O) than we have to accept that others do, too (Proposition 90), even if they do things with their property we don't like. We urge the passage of both Measure O and Proposition 90.
Scott Shackford