Property Bill Divisive Issue Some See Plan As Only Chance For Redress Of Lost Value

Rose Tinklin can’t get anyone to listen when she complains about the proposed subdivision next door, she says.

That’s made her an ardent fan of a proposed property rights law, circulating in the Idaho Legislature. Among other things, HB220 would allow her to take the county to court if she can prove her property value dips more than 10 percent as the result of a government decision.

Tinklin has water in her basement in the spring and an unwanted pond in the back yard of her Hayden Lake home much of the summer, a result of a high water table she didn’t know about when she purchased the place. Now there’s a proposal to subdivide the 25 acres over her back fence into 41 residential lots.

She worries that the homes that would follow will only channel more surface runoff into the unwanted backyard pond. Tinklin also worries that the lots will attract modular homes.

That would bring down the value of her home, built in 1992 and valued at more than $200,000, she said.

Tinklin has gone everywhere looking for redress. “Nobody can help me,” Tinklin said. “That’s why this law needs to be passed.”

Bonner County Commissioner Larry Allen also likes the law, saying it will force government to be more careful before making decisions. He was one of two commissioners to kill a program to protect the drinking water source for Oldtown, Idaho, and Newport, Wash., based on the proposal’s intrusion into private property rights.

The measure also faces significant opposition. It’s strong enough to make allies of groups ranging from the Association of Idaho Cities to the Idaho Conservation League.

“We are concerned that language isn’t well defined,” said Teri Ottnes, deputy director of the Association of Idaho Cities. “We don’t know what we have to pay for.”

Essentially, “it’s an unfunded state mandate,” she said.

In a two-page statement, Association Executive Director Scott McDonald raised concerns that “the language of this bill places the individual property owner needs on a higher level than society as a whole.” In the end, local governments may end up in fights just for fulfilling their obligation to protect public health, safety and welfare, McDonald wrote.

The proposed Idaho law may receive a hearing in the state Senate this week. It is modeled after a Florida measure, passed in 1995. Problems abound as a result of the law, critics say.

Jane Hayman, deputy general counsel for the Florida League of Cities, confirms that downtown redevelopments and other seemingly routine city projects are being delayed because government officials fear they will be sued under the new law.

A Florida State University study on the law also “showed that the ‘little people’ were actually intimidated by the cumbersome procedures and didn’t use it,” Hayman said.

“It’s so procedure-bound that you are walking into a mine field,” she said.

Hayman forecasts a different aspect of the problem Tinklin faces. “Nobody wants a hazardous waste site in their back yard, but with this law, you may not be able to stop it,” she said.

The author of the bill, Rep. Jim Kempton, R-Albion, takes issue with all of those arguments. The language doesn’t need to be any more exacting, Kempton said.

The courts will refine the definitions, just as they have refined the definition of just compensation in eminent domain cases. “This will take time to resolve,” he said.

Unstoppable hazardous waste dumps won’t start appearing because of the measure. Zoning laws now in place will clearly stop that, Kempton said.

All his proposal would do is force governments to make decisions based on better information, he said. “It’s so easy to put an overlay on and say thou shalt not, instead of putting down a technical base,” Kempton said.

“If you have a technical base, you won’t have a judge ruling” against you.

, DataTimes ILLUSTRATION: Color Photo