Big Battle Ahead For Supporters

Supporters of Initiative 164 have their work cut out for them to win at the ballot box, a veteran of a property rights fight in Arizona says.

Realtors and other business interests lost a referendum last November over an Arizona property rights law enacted in 1992.

Opponents outflanked them on the right, said Dan Miller, vice president of governmental affairs for the Arizona Association of Realtors.

“They used conservative arguments. They said it added bureaucracy and would cost taxpayers money. That works in a state like Arizona,” he said.

In Washington, Initiative 164 opponents say the measure will make it impossible to enforce routine zoning, and force taxpayers to pay businesses not to pollute, clearcut, over-build and strip mine.

John Lamson, spokesman for the campaign to overturn the initiative, calls I-164 “a taxpayer’s nightmare.”

Bob Hale, president of the Northwest Legal Foundation, which helped write I-164, said he’s sick of critics deliberately exaggerating the scope of the measure.

“People are saying this would allow your neighbor to build a firecracker factory next to you and a million other things that would never happen,” he said.

“That’s insane and there’s no benefit in even discussing it. I-164 is the most clear, unambiguous land-use law I’ve seen come out of the Legislature in 10 years. It simply says you can’t take someone’s property for public use unless you pay for it.”

Critics who say the measure is just about money are missing the point, said Jim Klauser, executive director of the Northwest Legal Foundation.

“Nobody’s out trying to cut a fat hog,” he said. “They just want to be left alone.

“All these bureaucrats are trying to do is scare people, by telling them if I-164 is enforced it will cost millions of dollars. Well not if they don’t take any property.”

Arizona’s property rights law required an impact analysis of any new state regulation before the rule could be adopted.

Opponents kept the law’s backers on the defensive, arguing the law was ambiguous and would lead to endless lawsuits.

“They used all these scare tactics, about how this would hurt public safety regulations and let someone build a hazardous waste site next to a nursing home. All these stupid things everyone knows could never happen, but it was very effective,” Miller said.

Joni Bosh, who spearheaded the campaign against the Arizona law, agreed the pocketbook approach with voters worked.

“You could tell people this thing would hurt the environment and they would have a hard time getting that. “They can’t believe the people they elect, who after all live in their community, would do that,” she said.

“But when we said this thing would cost them money, nobody had any trouble understanding that.”

Supporters of the Arizona law dumped more than $700,000 into the campaign, mainly from real estate, building, mining, timber and agriculture interests.

Real estate interests alone pumped in $223,000, including $50,000 from the Issues Mobilization Fund of the National Association of Realtors in Washington, D.C.

Supporters outspent opponents nearly two to one.

Backers of Initiative 164 predict an even more expensive campaign in Washington, as much as $1 million in support of the measure.

Miller’s advice to those I-164 defenders: Come up with urban, not rural examples of people hurt by regulation.

“The typical voter doesn’t have any idea about what’s going on outside their subdivision.”

, DataTimes