Proposition 2 will right the wrongs of an onerous system of land-use regulations.
That was the theme Thursday night at a talk at the Liberty Theatre in Hailey, where a Houston planner broke down the arguments for the ballot initiative, which voters will consider Nov. 7.
"The fundamental question is: Has anyone seen my property rights?" asked Leonard Gilroy, a senior policy analyst for Los Angeles-based Reason Foundation. "Where did they go?"
Proposition 2 is the product of a national movement to limit the ability of states to execute planning and zoning regulations at the expense of private property owners. Although the measure is aimed at the practice of eminent domain, its most controversial language has to do with its requirement that Idaho compensate any private property owner who perceives that a new land-use regulation negatively affects their property values.
Although Proposition 2 was pushed in Idaho by anti-tax activist Laird Maxwell, almost the entire budget for the initiative came from out of state. Idaho's initiative, like the others, follows the example of Oregon's Measure 37, enacted in 2004.
Among Gilroy's most convincing arguments was a desire for more fiscal accountability in government. Because zoning can often decrease property values, it is essentially a hit to taxpayers. Proposition 2 would facilitate government transparency in spending taxpayer dollars for zoning, he said.
"The bottom line is, government under Prop. 2 would be forced to consider a wider range of financial impacts based on future regulations," he said. "Right now, the path of least resistance is regulation. So, to me, Prop. 2 seems to be a fair means of giving government the flexibility to adopt regulations to promote the legitimate functions of government."
Gilroy covered a lot of ground, but he didn't miss his opportunity to poke Blaine County planners and political officials for their efforts on the 2025 plan.
Smart growth, often times, "perpetuates the sprawl it's trying to control," he said. "2025 is just pushing the growth farther away. That's what really happens. And it's not just here. It happens all over the place."
Gilroy talked at some length about Oregon's Measure 37, a property rights initiative that passed in 2004. He said 96 percent of Oregon is zoned for forest or agricultural uses.
"It's stark," Gilroy said. "It's stark what's happened there. It's like keeping Oregon in a museum, in a sense."
Opposition from planners and government officials is only to be expected, Gilroy said:
"It's a threat to their sacred cow. They don't actually have to pay for the public benefits that they get."
