Position of the
Cooper Point Assn. Board of Directors
on Initiative 933
September, 2006
Initiative 933 is a “property rights” proposal,
which is being proposed in response to a feeling by some rural
property-owners that current land use regulations ‘damage’ their property by
preventing some land uses.
The Initiative requires cities and counties to
perform a complex assessment of how existing and proposed laws will reduce
the value of all private property. If any person’s property value is
reduced, then taxpayers must pay the property owner the difference – even if
the regulation is designed to protect public or environmental values. I-933
also specifically allows any use, such as land clearing or building, which
was legal ten years ago.
The Cooper Point Association Board opposes Initiative 933, for the
following reasons:
1. If enacted into law, I-933 will create
significant new costs for cities and counties. Even if cities and counties
attempt to save money by not enforcing land use rules, they must still
perform expensive analyses of all of their actions to ensure that no action
creates any diminution in the value of any person’s land or property. These
studies will be expensive and time-consuming, and local governments will
either need to raise taxes or reduce existing services to pay for them.
There will also be expensive lawsuits that citizens will have to pay for.
2. I-933 will end our current system of land use
planning, and replace it with a confusing mixture of ten-year old ordinances
and toothless regulations. This means that the residents of Cooper Point
will no longer be able to rely on zoning and land use regulations to protect
the livability of the Point. Clear-cuts, high-density housing and
inappropriate land uses are much more likely if I-933 is enacted.
3. This Initiative goes way overboard in its
response to a perceived problem. If farmers or homeowners are suffering
inappropriate burdens under existing ordinances, the County and City have
ways to mitigate these hardships under existing law. We do not need to move
ten years backwards in land use planning, and create new costs and confusion
for us all, to remedy these problems. There are many laws – including the
U.S. Constitution – which protect private property from being ‘taken’ by
government unless it is paid for.
In short, the CPA Board opposes this Initiative because
it imposes
significant new costs on the public, benefits few,
and jeopardizes years of
good land use planning.
|
