Some of the major news magazines are offering an interesting take on the “regulatory takings” measures on the ballots of four western states.
When I say interesting, I mean the articles offer a conspicuously statist perspective.
For those unfamiliar with the votes planned in Arizona, California, Idaho, and Washington, the idea is relatively simple: if the government makes a decision that cuts your property values, you deserve compensation.
The Kelo case served as the spark for the debate, but the measures cover more than just eminent domain cases.
U.S. News describes the “regulatory takings” measures as supporting a “radical property-rights agenda.” Meanwhile, TIME raises its own concerns:
California’s Proposition 90, says Chris McKenzie, executive director
of the California League of Cities, “is designed to eliminate virtually
all government regulation.” Environmentalists say that if it passes,
California’s coastal commission, unable to compensate everyone who
wants to build along the oceanfront, would no longer be able to protect
it from ugly McMansions and ensure public beach access. And developers
could build homes on dangerously steep slopes or plop factories into
residential neighborhoods. More imaginatively, the nonpartisan
California Budget Project argues that because Prop 90 applies to
consumer-protection laws, if the state restricted ATM fees, it would
have to compensate banks for the revenue they would lose because of the
capped charges.
Sounds bad, doesn’t it? But wait:
Many of the claims are “hysterical gibberish,”
maintains Prop 90 spokesman Kevin Spillane, noting that compensation
would be required only for “substantial” damage to property values. The
initiative exempts health and safety regulations, he points out, and
current zoning laws would still apply, protecting beaches and steep
slopes, for instance. As for future laws, he argues, “if you own a
piece of property that’s zoned one way, then it is unfair for the
government to change the rules.”
The story’s last paragraph is its best:
For Robert Blue [a Hollywood shop owner targeted for an eminent domain taking] … the issue is fairness, whether the government seizes land or merely passes a law affecting the value of a home or business. “If you make an investment and the rules change,” he says, “you should be compensated.” It’s up to his fellow taxpayers in California and the three other states to decide whether they are ready to pay up.
