Friday, February 23, 2007

How Prop. 207 really works

Dear Rattlers:

Here is a quick clip about the town of Taylor, AZ which is in the process of annexing some parcels from Navajo County. With just a little consideration of Prop. 207, everybody wins. The town gets its annexation and the property owners are protected from forced down-zoning and the accompanying decrease in property value.

It's so nice to see a few of our elected officials operating like adults and not a bunch of ham-handed commissars who force their will on the very people who pay their salaries.

Keep rattling,
Big Rattler

Taylor Council Votes To Annex Solomon Manor -- By Naomi Hatch

[Taylor, AZ Town Manager Stephen] Sturgell said that they have met with some problems because there are some subdivisions that have CC&Rs (covenants, conditions and restrictions) that require two-acre lot minimums on agricultural land. Sturgell also explained that agricultural land annexed from Navajo County that comes into the town comes in as one-acre lots.

Town Attorney Sterling Solomon has been looking into this problem and said there is good news, in that the town can amend the zoning code. Because of Proposition 207, they must be careful where they amend the zoning code so that it does not decrease property value.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Gov't "Forced Waivers" = Adhesion Contract

Since Arizona voters enacted Prop. 207 by an overwhelming 65% margin, the local land use commissars and their statist allies have been working overtime to scheme on ways to circumvent the new private property rights protections now enjoyed by voters.

As outlined in previous posts, the local officials concocted these outrageous "forced waivers" that appear to prohibit property owners from exercising their Prop. 207 rights to just compensation for regulatory takings.

These "forced waivers" for simple administrative acts like submitting plans or applying for an electrical permit are clearly out of bounds and obviously a backhand by the commissars to the voters.

But legally, these "forced waivers" are likely illegal. The legal terminology is "Adhesion Contract."

Definition: adhesion contract n.

(contract of adhesion) a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained.

Example: a rich landlord dealing with a poor tenant who has no choice and must accept all terms of a lease, no matter how restrictive or burdensome, since the tenant cannot afford to move.

An adhesion contract can give the little guy the opportunity to claim in court that the contract with the big shot is invalid. This doctrine should be used and applied more often, but the same big guy-little guy inequity may apply in the ability to afford a trial or find and pay a resourceful lawyer.

While we routinely enter into adhesion contracts (also known as take-it-or-leave-it), such as buying groceries or insurance; when the ability to negotiate is absent or limited, the adhesion contract of "forced waivers" are likely illegal.

The good news is a few of the city/town employees seem to be getting the message that they were hired to help citizens and not go out of their way to make our lives miserable. They are not on our payroll to piss-and-moan about not getting their way of micro-managing our lives.

We say, "Thanks but no thanks! Now, get back to work."


Big Rattler

Monday, February 19, 2007

Attorneys consider Arizona Proposition 207 ‘earthquake’

By Philip S. Moore, Inside Tucson BusinessPosted: Friday, Feb 16, 2007 - 04:26:45 pm MST

If the evolution of land use law is like geology, where centuries of imperceptible change are punctuated by sudden shocks, the passage by Arizona's voters of Proposition 207 is comparable to the 1905 San Francisco earthquake.

Culminating a process that began in the 1980s, when the a series of legal decisions began to offer greater protection of private property rights, attorney Frank Bangs Jr. said the vote to restrict eminent domain and rules that impact land use is this kind of "seismic event," that dramatically alters the landscape for governments and property owners, alike.

To help planning officials, attorneys and property owner to navigate this new environment, Bangs and fellow land use attorney Keri Silvyn spoke about the new law and its implications at a special Feb. 14 seminar, co-sponsored by Lewis and Roca and Inside Tucson Business.

Following on the 2003 Bailey vs. Myers decision in Mesa, which curtailed the ability of a municipality to use eminent domain to support privately sponsored redevelopment ventures, Bangs said the 2006 vote goes even further in protecting property owners.

It give them the right to seek compensation for attorney's fees and makes it clear to cities and towns that eminent domain is no longer a free pass. Neither are land use rules, Silvyn said. Regulatory takings, land use rules that affect the use of property and its value, have been subjected to increased scrutiny and tighter regulation for two decades. With Proposition 207, the protection offered landowners has reached a new level, shifting the burden of proof and expense to the regulators.

That's a good thing, said Clint Bolick, senior fellow at the Goldwater Institute and a Proposition 207 sponsor. A panelist at the seminar, he said, "More than anything else, I think it should change the way Arizona is governed." The voters also sent a strong signal that they don't trust local officials. "Government is convinced its acting for the public good," he said. "Now, they have to have to ask themselves if they value what they want to do enough to pay for it."

This might have been the intention of Proposition 207, but another panel member and Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said, "Initiatives are a poor way to govern." He said implementing public policy means planning. That means placing limits on land use.

"Landowners shouldn't expect a reward for not planning." Ultimately, decisions will need to be made on what's covered by the Proposition.

Although based on Proposition 37, approved by Oregon's voters in 2003, panelist and land use attorney Mary Beth Savel said there are many questions that Arizona's courts will need to decide. "What is regulation? What does 'land use' mean?

Is a policy a land use law, and what is diminution of value?" Also, "zoning should apply equally for all property in that zone," she said. If local governments choose to resolve regulatory problems due to Proposition 207 by granting exemptions, that uniformity goes away, "and that's going to create a public policy problem."

One thing no local government should contemplate is attempting to circumvent the new law, said panelist Frank Cassidy, attorney for the Town of Marana. Noting Scottsdale's new Proposition 207 waiver for any land use request, he said, "They should reconsider."

An overly broad liability waiver could be considered an "adhesion document," and therefore void, and it doesn't relieve a local government from the federal and state laws already protecting property owners.
"For government lawyers, land use protection like Proposition 207 is a troubling idea, since governments tend to pass regulations to try to help people."

However, to attempt to circumvent the law "is playing into the hands of the people who supported the proposition. You're demonstrating that government can't be trusted."

Friday, February 16, 2007

Arizona property owners asked to waive some rights

10:23 AM MST on Monday, February 12, 2007
Associated Press

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) -- Property owners across Arizona are being asked to waive their rights to be compensated for lost property value if they decide to develop their land.

Proposition 207, which was approved by voters in November, expanded property rights in Arizona so that landowners can file claims when government land-use rules lower their property value.

Government officials say one problem with the law is that it appears to allow someone to request a rezoning and then file a claim, seeking monetary damages because the rezoning lowered the property's value.

"The way that lawsuits happen today, I don't think it's unreasonable," said Ken Strobeck, executive director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. "It's illogical, but it's not outside the realm of possibility."

Officials say closing that loophole could keep taxpayers safe from frivolous lawsuits.

The League of Arizona Cities and Towns is encouraging its members to adopt waivers in which the person seeking a rezoning or conditional use permit agrees not to seek claims for the specific action requested.

Pima County and Marana have used similar language in rezonings approved this year, Sahuarita is working on a waiver and Tucson plans to make the waivers standard.

But some cities are using broader waivers.

Strobeck said he suspects some of the waivers will end up in court.

One city that has drawn attention is Apache Junction east of Phoenix. Its waiver includes language that indemnifies the city, effectively barring lawsuits.

Apache Junction City Attorney Joel Stern said he was trying to protect the city from claims about the specific action being sought, not from all claims.

But one applicant who wanted to change some of the conditions on a permit objected to the waiver, saying it was depriving him of his rights under Proposition 207.

Stern said he is working with the applicant on language he would find acceptable.
"We don't want to be the first test case," Stern said.

Some property-rights advocates say the waivers could allow governments to cross the line.
"It appears to be an attempt to repeal Proposition 207," said Clint Bolick, a senior fellow at the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank. "It's unfortunate that governments are looking for ways not to comply but to evade it. It's that kind of arrogance that led voters to endorse Proposition 207."

Monday, February 12, 2007

Facts that make some facts fiction

During the successful campaign to enact Arizona’s Prop. 207, many of governmento-crats and liberal media-crats in fact made claims that were fiction.

Pre-election facts--

FACT: Ken Strobeck, Arizona League of Cities and Towns, said prior to the election on the Horizon’s program (PBS Ch. 8): “[Passage of Prop. 207] in the sense that it would essentially freeze all zoning and land use regulation just the way they are today.”

FACT: Arizona Republic (10-08-06) editorial: “Arizona would be frozen. Locked into today’s rules despite tomorrow’s differing needs.” (sic)

Post-election facts--

NOT “FROZEN” FACT #1: Attorneys for the Fain Signature Group, which owns the affected 57 acres, applied for the General Plan amendment to encourage higher-intensity development.
The land in question is in the Town Center, north along Lakeshore Drive across from the Prescott Valley Civic Center.Community Development staff stated that the amendment would create a "main street and business core atmosphere."
"We realize all the development that has taken place in the area" since the community adopted the General Plan in 2002, planner Joe Scott told the council.
Scott said nobody spoke against the proposal when the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed it Jan. 8, adding that the commissioners unanimously supported it as well.
Nobody spoke out against the amendment during the council meeting, and the council members voted 7-0 for it. (Source: Prescott Daily Courier 2/10/07)

NOT “FROZEN” FACT #2: Consideration of Public Hearing (PC LUP 2006-003): A proposed amendment to the Flagstaff Area Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan to change the land use designation for approximately .66 acres of land located at 2650 South Beulah Boulevard from Urban Open Space to Commercial Regional Category.

Vice-Mayor Overton moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Councilmember Haughey. The vote was unanimous in favor. (Flagstaff City Council Minutes - 12-19-06)

Fact of the Facts--

It is a fact that in spite of the overheated phony “frozen” claims by opponents of the private property rights protections enacted by Prop. 207, in fact land use is NOT “locked into today’s rules despite tomorrow’s differing needs.”

Big Rattler could fill up another blog reporting the factual instances where land use changes every day in Arizona. These two examples make the point snappingly clear.

These facts make is hard to believe anything the governmento-crats and liberal media-crats say.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Just the Prop. 207 Facts

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Proposition 207 could affect land use decisions

Thursday, January 18, 2007

PRESCOTT -- Arizona voters approved Proposition 207, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, Nov. 7, 2006. The governor signed it into law a month later.

Deputy County Attorney Randy Schurr told the Board of Supervisors Tuesday the proposition has two major components.

Schurr said the first component deals with eminent domain. In the past, governments could seize private property only for a public purpose.

Schurr said the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that economic development is a public purpose. However, he said this part of Prop. 207 has little effect on the county.

The reduction in value component is more important, Schurr said.

"In the past, the reduction of property value was not eligible for valuation compensation unless the value was reduced to nothing," he said.

When voters passed Prop. 207, Schurr said property owners are eligible for compensation if their property value decreases because of a zoning or land use change.

"If there is a reduction in the right to use the property, there could be a reduction in the value," he said.

Chairman Chip Davis asked if the denial of a use permit or a change to adjoining property qualifies as a reduction in right.

Supervisor Carol Springer said, "A neighbor has no claim unless his or her property is directly affected."

Schurr noted that the law is not retroactive. He added that the original property owner must file the reduction in right claim.

The deputy county attorney said Prop. 207 includes a three-year statute of limitations for filing a claim and governments have 90 days to respond to the claim.

The Road to Serfdom (Ch IV)

Here are a couple of nuggets that reveal the "planners" mindset and why they hate the Private Property Rights enacted in Arizona's Prop. 207. This anti-competition, pro-planning monopoly is nothing new.

Many years ago in his most famous book "The Road To Serfdom," Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek concisely explained the nanny-state planners desire to control and why we should avoid their false seductions.

Hayek's excerpts:

The Road to Serfdom (Ch IV)

The "Inevitability" of Planning

We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms assumed by civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must become. -- Benito Mussolini

Most (planners) affirm that we can no longer choose but are compelled by circumstances beyond our control to substitute planning for competition. The myth is deliberately cultivated that we are embarking on the new course not out of free will but because competition is spontaneously eliminated by technological changes which we neither can reverse nor should wish to prevent.

The tendency toward monopoly and planning is not the result of any "objective facts" beyond our control but the product of opinions fostered and propagated for half a century until they have come to dominate all our policy.

What planners generally suggest is that the increasing difficulty of obtaining a coherent picture of the complete economic process makes it indispensable that things should be coordinated by some central agency if social life is not to dissolve in chaos. This argument is based on a complete misapprehension of the working competition. Far from being appropriate only to comparatively simple conditions, it is the very complexity of the division of labor under modern conditions which makes competition the only method by which such coordination can be adequately brought about.

It is no exaggeration to say that if we had had to rely on conscious central planning for the growth of our industrial system, it would never have reached the degree of differentiation, complexity, and flexibility it has attained. Compared with this method of solving the economic problem by means of decentralization plus automatic coordination, the more obvious method of central direction is incredibly clumsy, primitive, and limited in scope. That the division of labor has reached the extent which makes modern civilization possible we owe to the fact that it did not have to be consciously created but that man tumbled on a method by which the division of labor could be extended far beyond the limits within which it could have been planned.

Any further growth of its complexity, therefore, far from making central direction more necessary, make it more important than ever that we should us a technique which does not depend on conscious control.

There is yet another theory which connects the growth of monopolies with technological progress. It contends not that modern technique destroys competition but that, on the contrary, it will be impossible to make use of many of the new technological possibilities unless protection against competition is granted, i.e., a monopoly is conferred. No doubt in many cases it is used merely as a form of special pleading by interested parties.

While it is true, of course, that inventions have given us tremendous power, it is absurd to suggest that we must use this power to destroy our most precious inheritance: liberty. It does mean, however, that if we want to preserve it, we must guard it more jealously than ever and that we must be prepared to make sacrifices for it.

While there is nothing in modern technological developments which forces us toward comprehensive economic planning, there is a great deal in them which makes infinitely more dangerous the power a planning authority would possess.

We all think that our personal order of values is not merely personal but that in a free discussion among rational people we would convince the others that ours is the right one. The lover of the countryside who wants above all that its traditional appearance would be preserved and that the blots already made by industry on its fair face should be removed . . . know that (his) aim can be fully achieved only by planning.

The movement for planning owes its present strength largely to the fact that, while planning is in the main still an ambition, it unites almost all the single minded idealists, all the men and women who have devoted their lives to a single task.

It (planning) would make the very men who are most anxious to plan society the most dangerous if they were allowed to do so – and the most intolerant of the planning of others.

From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a single step.

Quotes from Chapters I & II can be viewed here:
Chapter III:
THE ROAD TO SERFDOM in movie form, 5 minute cartoon:

Friday, February 9, 2007

Watch the "Forced Waiver" debate on government TV

KAET-TV Channel 8
Horizons Program -- Wednesday, February 7, 2007 
· Prop 207 Waivers
Private property activists are crying foul as valley cities hand out waivers to prop 207 to development planners and others seeking zoning changes. Ken Strobeck, Executive Director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, and Lori Klein, the Executive Director of Arizona Homeowner Protection Effort are guests.
The video runs 9 minutes 31 seconds.
(Here is the link to video page just in case you have a little problem with the above links:

Sneaky AZ cities dodge new property-rights law

Look at this well-crafted article from Clint Bolick.
He opines: "Luckily for those who find themselves faced with this Hobson's choice, the waivers are blatantly unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that government can't condition a benefit on the surrender of rights."
Big Rattler says it's time to tell your local elected commissar to, "Knock off with the funny business, get back to work and make our lives eaiser, not harder.  That's what we are paying you to do."
Snapping fast,
Big Rattler

The Arizona Daily Star

Published: 02.08.2007

By Clint Bolick, Phoenix attorney and a senior research fellow at the Goldwater Institute.
Just two months ago, Arizona voters sent a resounding message to their government: hands off our property.
Passing Proposition 207 by a 65 percent majority, despite doomsday scenarios from elected officials and bureaucrats, the voters put the clamps on regulations that exceed normal governmental purposes and diminish the value of private property (known as "regulatory takings").
Given that public officials are sworn to uphold the law, one might expect them to figure out how to comply with the new limits. But, of course, most of the ingenuity is being poured into how to evade them.
The East Valley Tribune last week reported that a slew of cities have come up with a nifty way to nullify Proposition 207: Whenever property owners ask permission to develop their property, cities force them to sign a waiver of their Proposition 207 rights.
Some cities are focusing just on the specific transaction — they don't want the owner to be able to sue them — but others are asking property owners to sign away all of their Proposition 207 rights and to bind anyone who purchases the property in the future.
Developers, who must keep on the good side of city governments, will feel bound to sign the "voluntary" waivers; as will ordinary property owners who merely want to add a second story to their homes or build a pool.
Luckily for those who find themselves faced with this Hobson's choice, the waivers are blatantly unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that government can't condition a benefit on the surrender of rights.
Moreover, if the government exacts something of value in exchange for a development permit, there must be a "substantial nexus" between the exaction and the permit. If you want to build a hardware store, for instance, the city might require you to contribute to public parking, but it can't force you to forever sign away your rights to sue the city.
That's called extortion, and it's not allowed, even by the mayor.
Proposition 207 established a simple principle: Outside of the normal bounds of health, safety and other traditional governmental purposes, if a city takes something of value from one of its citizens it has to pay for it.
But government kleptomania is too widely entrenched for local governments to abandon it easily.
Too bad we'll all have to foot the bill if the cities persist and someone has to sue them to establish that the law means what it says.
Write to Clint Bolick at

Egad! Our fearless bureaucrats are teaching us how to be good little people

Fellow Citizens:
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:
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.

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,
Big Rattler

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Zoning change clears way for KAOL primary
New district office will also be built next to charter high school on Burbank

Thursday, February 08, 2007

KINGMAN - Plans for construction of a new district office and primary school next to its high school on Burbank Street can now proceed at the Kingman Academy of Learning.

The school district got the 1.26-acre parcel of property rezoned from R-4 (multiple-family residential) to C-2 (community commercial) during Monday night's meeting of the Kingman City Council.

Gary Jeppson, director of the city's development services department, made a presentation seeking the rezoning to the Council.

The site originally was given the R-4 designation more than 10 years ago to permit construction of an apartment complex that never came to fruition. The proposed school could be built on the property, but its designation had to be changed to C-2 to allow for the district office, Jeppson said. "We followed up on their application for rezoning when they submitted it," he said.

School district officials had to sign a waiver to Proposition 207 to get the rezone approved.

"We probably worked on this for three months," said Susan Chan, KAOL district administrator.

"Prop. 207 deals with property owners requesting a rezone. If in subsequent years you feel it has lowered the value of the property, it gives you the right to sue the entity granting the rezone."

By signing the waiver, KAOL has agreed not to sue the city if property values decline on the site in the future.

Modular Technology of Phoenix is the project contractor for the new district office and primary school. It is producing modular units to be delivered to and assembled at the site.

"We've given them a June 30 deadline for building completion," Chan said. "The school must go in first. We have some flexibility on when the district office is ready."

The district currently leases space for its primary school (pre-school through grade 2) at First Southern Baptist Church on Hualapai Mountain Road.

Electrical, plumbing and concrete work still must be done and now can proceed before final assembly of the modular units, Chan said.

The primary school will border the back fence of KAOL Intermediate School on Harrison Street. Plans call for it to have 24,000 square feet of space with 17 classrooms, a large multi-purpose room, office complex and two banks of bathrooms.

The district office will be located beside KAOL High School on Burbank Street. It will encompass 6,000 square feet of space, which is double the size of the current office on Beverly Avenue.

Chan said she expects both new facilities to open in August when the 2007-2008 school year begins.


Thursday, February 8, 2007

Cities bypass property rights

[East Valley/ Scottsdale Tribune]
Cities bypass property rights
By Art Martori
When Bill Sandry went to Apache Junction City Hall to get a development permit, he was told he could only get one if he agreed to waive one of Arizona's newest property rights. The city demanded that Sandry give up his right to sue the city if any land-use decision...

Click here to read the rest of the article.

The Empire Strikes Back

From the Goldwater Institute

The Empire Strikes Back
Cities Demand People Sign Away Prop 207 Rights.

by Clint Bolick February 6, 2007

Just two months ago, Arizona voters sent a resounding message to their government: hands off our property. Passing Proposition 207 by a 65 percent majority, despite doomsday scenarios from elected officials and bureaucrats, the voters put the clamps on regulations that exceed normal governmental purposes and diminish the value of private property.

Given that public officials are sworn to uphold the law, one might expect them to figure out how to comply with the new limits. But, of course, most of the ingenuity is being poured into how to evade them.

The East Valley Tribune reported that slews of cities have come up with a nifty way to nullify Proposition 207: whenever property owners ask permission to develop their property, they force them to sign a waiver of their Proposition 207 rights. These waivers are blatantly unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that government can't condition a benefit on the surrender of rights.

Kleptomania is too widely entrenched for local governments to abandon it easily. Too bad we'll all have to foot the bill if someone has to sue the cities to establish that the law means what it says.

Key Links
City of Peoria
Denial of Permit due to refusal to waive Prop 207 rights
East Valley Tribune
Cities bypass property rights
League of Arizona Cities and Towns
Prop 207 Workshop
Ann Seiden, Communications and Hispanic Outreach Coordinator, Goldwater Institute, (602) 462-5000 x 223,

Forced Waiver -- Phoenix

Click on the waiver to get larger view.

Local Bureaucrats "Force Waivers" on owners



January 26, 2007

Contact:  Lori Klein, 602-324-3528    




Supporters ask: "How can obtaining an electrical permit diminish property values?"


PHOENIX— Hope for Arizona leaders are fielding numerous calls from Arizona property owners who are now being forced by local officials to sign away their Prop. 207 property rights for such standard requirements as obtaining an electrical permit.


Lori Klein, executive director of the property rights group, likened the local officials' actions as appearing childish, "because they didn't get their way -- so here is their tantrum -- to make property owners lives more difficult."


Klein, along with former State Treasurer Carol Springer, were recently on a panel in Tucson discussing Prop. 207 which overwhelming passed last November by a 65% - 35% margin.


At that meeting the Prop. 207 so-called government "waivers" were discussed.  These forced "waivers" were presented as necessary when an owner requests a formal zoning change.   According to one local official on the panel, the "waiver" is designed to prevent the owner who requests the formal zoning change from later filing a Prop. 207 claim citing diminution of property value.


"We are doing our legal research regarding these forced government 'waivers.'  At face value it appears that a court would not allow a Prop. 207 claim for action requested by the property owner," said Klein.   "So far, these 'waivers' appear to be non-consequential, legally frivolous and a waste of taxpayer time and dollars; and, are simply another burden to citizens who are exercising their private property rights."


Prop. 207 supporter, State Sen. Chuck Gray said, "There might be a rare scenario where the local officials may need to ask for a 'waiver' from a complicated planned development re-zoning project, but being forced to sign away property rights for an electrical or plumbing permit is just nonsensical.   It smacks of officials trying to punish voters for doing something they didn't like."


Supporters ask the logical question: "How can obtaining an electrical permit diminish property values?"


Supporters asked local government officials to "get over it and move on" and get back to work doing the peoples' business in the most cost-effective and consumer friendly manner they can.   "That is what they have been hired by the people to do," said Klein.


To learn more about Proposition 207, visit or call Lori Klein at 602-324-3528.


# # #

AZ Property Owners -- This blog's for you

Recently, the powers that be have decided that since 65% of Arizona voters approved Prop. 207 the voters must be punished for their actions.

Specifically, local governments are mandating "forced waivers" for both administrative and legislative action whenever a property owner wheels down to city hall or the county courthouse to get a permit to improve their property.

This blog is designed to let you know about the happenings around the state and what citizens are doing to fight for their property rights, especially those rights enacted by the overwhelming passage of Prop. 207.

Keep checking in ... or if you have another example, please share it with us here.