Articles by Eric de Place

Misleading campaigns and unconstitutional initiatives

In my previous posts on the 2006 takings ballot measures (here, here, and here), I promised I'd get out the tinfoil hat and talk conspiracy theory. So here goes ...

Stories of how Measure 37 has affected Oregon landowners

For two days now, I've been blathering on about the unholy "property rights" ballot measures in 2006 -- see here and here. But if you really want to understand the potential impacts of these takings initiatives, there's one real-world example: Oregon.

For two years, Oregon has been the only state in the nation with a pay-or-waive law on the books: Measure 37. The results clearly illustrate the dangers facing other Western states. So as a way to warn other places of what can happen, Sightline Institute (where I work) recently compiled a batch of real-life stories from neighbors and communities in Oregon.

You can read the full stories, along with some additional context, in our report, Property Wrongs (PDF). If you don't have time for that, here's the bite-sized version:

Regulatory takings initiatives tie communities’ hands

I love sewers. I love them because the alternative is so much worse. Ponder that for a moment.

What the heck do sewers have to do with property rights and regulatory takings? Patience, grasshopper.

As I wrote yesterday, a rash of so-called "property rights" ballot measures in the West are threatening the very basics of community planning and environmental protection. Arizonans are facing Prop 207; Californians are battling Prop 90; Idahoans are up against Prop 2; and Washingtonians are facing Initiative 933. (Montanans and Nevadans recently dodged a bullet when their initiatives were invalidated because of little things like fraud and constitutional violations. More on that in a later installment.)

By design, all the 2006 property ballot measures deploy the same scheme: "pay or waive." That is, you can pay a property owner to obey the law, or you can waive the law.

Western ballot measures would gut environmental protections

A couple of weeks ago, while hurrying to a favorite trout stream, I was pulled over for speeding in a small town. I must have been fried from months of research and writing on the so-called "property rights" movement, because it suddenly occurred to me that the current system is backward.

So I said* to the officer: "Listen, if The Man wants me to obey his laws to keep this town safe, then he should pay me for my time."

Now if my reasoning with the cop sounds ridiculous to you,then you may have difficulty grasping the thinking behind the rash of ballot measures spreading across the West like ... well, like a rash.

But there you have it: there's a well-funded and highly ideological campaign with national marching orders. In 2006, they've landed initiatives on the ballot in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Washington. All the initiatives have the same aim: to force communities to pay property owners to obey land-use laws. And if communities can't pay, they must grant waivers from the law.

(Don't live in one of these states? There's one headed your way soon. Live in Europe? You're next.)