|
Home >
Legislative Tracker
> NOW: compensation; land use regulation
Land Use:
NOW: compensation; land use regulation
Our Position: oppose
Bill Number: HCR2031
Sponsor: Representative C. Gray
Legislative Session: 2006 Legislative Session
HCR2031 Threatens Land Use Protections.
HCR2031 NOW: compensation; land use regulation (C. Gray), a measure being promoted by an out-of-state organization called Americans for Limited Government, refers to the ballot a measure that requires governments to compensate property owners for nearly every zoning or land use decision they make. If adopted, this measure would either have a huge negative financial impact, draining funds from important public services, or, more likely result in no enforcement of land use protections. The current zoning in cities, towns and counties would be effectively frozen, preventing government from responding to future community concerns, including possible re-zoning for protection of sensitive areas.
Status
Its companion bill in the Senate, SCR1019, passed on 03/22/06 by a vote of 21-5-4. That is really bad news for all of us. We need to continue to encourage legislators to oppose this bill and others that might arise from strike everything amendments.
Action Needed
Please continue to let both your house members and senators know that you oppose this kind of legislation and that instead you would like to see strong land use protections implemented.
More information
For more information on SCR1019, go to http://www.azleg.state.az.us/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SCR1019 and for HCR2031, go to http://www.azleg.state.az.us/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=HCR2031
Contact
Sandy Bahr at sandy.bahr@sierraclub.org or (602) 253-8633.
Background
HCR2031 and SCR1019, its companion bill in the Senate,
threaten land use protections
HCR2031 and SCR1019 refer to the ballot measures that require governments to compensate property owners for nearly every zoning or land use decision they make. If adopted, this measure would have a huge negative financial impact, draining funds from vital public services. In addition, it effectively would freeze current zoning, preventing government from responding to future community concerns.
Examples of actions that could trigger lawsuits and payment from government:
- Approval or wash protection ordinances.
- Approval of hillside protection ordinances.
- Approval or disapproval of historic overlay zoning.
- Enforcement or enactment of neighborhood or wildlife habitat preservation measures.
- Approval of buffer areas near preserves or important wildlife habitat areas.
- Nearly every land use protection.
These measures open the door for anyone with the perception that there has been some reduction in property value to file a claim for compensation with their local government.
We oppose these concurrent resolutions for several reasons.
(1) They muddy the water by connecting and confusing the power of condemnation and the issues relative to land use regulation and whether or not a regulatory taking has occurred. While there may need to be some clarification relative to what constitutes a public use relative to condemnation, surely no one can believe that our land use laws in Arizona are too stringent. Development is going at a breakneck speed already and our communities and infrastructure are suffering.
(2) They will be costly to taxpayers in our cities, towns, and counties, especially those who are trying to implement meaningful planning for open space, transportation, and other quality of life issues. What will this do to the budgets of communities that are already struggling to make ends meet?
(3) They only look at one side of the issue relative to government regulation of property. Government actions often give value to private property via infrastructure and other services. These measures only look at actions that potentially devalue property. They also do not account for the impact on surrounding neighbors, but only address the property subject to the government action. If my property is devalued by the building or expansion of a freeway nearby, I am not entitled to compensation. This is a clear double standard.
(4) They are unnecessary. The United States and Arizona Constitutions as interpreted by the courts provide strong protection for private property rights.
The Arizona Legislature has attempted to win passage of takings measures in the past; legislators have rejected most of these measures and the Arizona voters rejected the one that was referred to the ballot by the citizens. In 1992, the legislature passed a takings measure that was referred by organizations opposed to it and then it was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters in 1994 (60% to 40%). There is no reason to take a different approach now. It is important that the Arizona Legislature reject these ill-conceived measures.
(Thanks to the Arizona Preservation Foundation for providing some of the background on this bill.)
|
