1. The school district requested and "up-zone" from residential to commercial to build a new school district office. OK. 99.9% of the time an up-zone from residential to commercial results in the parcel becoming more (not less) valuable. Prop 207 only kicks in when an owner loses property value directly from a government action.
2. If, as the story reports, the property with the new up-zone somehow decreased in value in the future, what grounds would a suit be based upon against the city for ACTION THE OWNER SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED!?! Does this sound rational, "I made a mistake asking for the zoning change and the city with all their planning expertise should have known better and not let me do it ... they should have protected me from my stupidity ... now my property is worth a lot less so give me some money because it is the city's fault."
3. If this had occurred in Apache Junction, even getting the electrical permit might have required signing a government imposed 207 forced waiver.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Egad! Our fearless bureaucrats are teaching us how to be good little people
The story below represents the ARROGANT mind-set that we have allowed to foster in our bureaucratic employees. Remember ... they work for us, they are on our payroll.
Fortunately, passage of Prop. 207 by an overwhelming margin of 65% not only protects our private property from eminent domain abuse and the nefarious practice of regulatory takings, but it will focus the thinking of our government employees. In other words, it takes away their "mental green card" to be arrogant.
Here is what's arrogant with the incidents reported in the story below:
The facts are that in very rare instances one of the government forced waiver might (repeat, might) be in order. For instance a large planned development might have some parcels of the larger plan where some planned open space may be down-zoned. The city/county might be open to a Prop. 207 claim on the down-zoned open space parcels. Might. The developer would still have to overcome the argument that even though the down-zone was requested, now demands money. It is a steep legal hill to climb.
Both notable Arizona attorneys Clint Bolick (former Institute of Justice) and Gary Lassen (successfully defended Prop. 207 against legal attacks from cities/counties) have opined that these forced waiver are unconstitutional.
The bureaucrats made blatantly false arguments during the campaign and now are punishing voters with their forced waiver scheme. We do not pay them to make our lives miserable, yet they persist.
Local elected officials are the bureaucrats supervisors and unless they "call off the dogs" these anointed (strike that -- elected) officials will be held accountable by the very voters who demand prompt, courteous service from our government.
"Lose the attitude and get back to work," could be a good campaign slogan.
Snap at you later,
Posted by Liberty Spuds at 8:48 AM