Drive To Put 1-164 On Ballot Rakes In Support Effort To Let Public Vote On Property-Rights Measure Turns In More Than Twice The Needed Signatures

Foes of the state’s new “takings” law Friday turned in more than twice the number of signatures needed to put the issue on the ballot, assuring a November vote on whether to keep or kill the statute.

Initiative 164, the target of the referendum signature drive, would require state and local governments to compensate property owners for losses in land value caused by regulations.

The initiative won legislative passage this spring, automatically precluding a public vote on the measure. That triggered the referendum campaign to force the measure onto the ballot.

A consortium of civic and environmental groups said Friday the first stage of the campaign - getting enough signatures to qualify for the ballot - was more successful than they had hoped.

The “No On 164” campaign turned over to Secretary of State Ralph Munro what it said were about 228,000 signatures. That dwarfs the 90,834 signatures of registered voters needed to qualify the challenge, Referendum 48, for the ballot.

“I can’t imagine the circumstances under which it would not qualify for the ballot unless we had an extremely high number of invalid signatures,” said David Brine, a spokesman for Munro.

Initiative opponents, who held a small but loud rally on the Capitol steps, contend the law will put state and local governments into an untenable position: Pay for regulation or choose not to regulate.

The foes lambasted the new law as a budget-buster for government and a disaster for intelligent land-use planning.

Initiative 164 backers scoffed at the assertion, calling it talk intended to frighten voters.

They argued that scores of ordinary citizens in recent years have suffered big financial losses because of capricious regulations that prevent them from developing or using their land. And they asserted that if taxpayers don’t want to pay compensation, they should elect representatives who have less appetite to devalue land through regulation.

“Property owners have a right to fair compensation when government regulations reduce the value of their property,” said Senate Caucus Chairman Sid Synder, D-Long Beach, a supporter of Initiative 164.

Gov. Mike Lowry, a fellow Democrat, is staunchly opposed to the initiative.

He showed up at the rally Friday and contended the new law, which is on hold pending the outcome of the public vote, “puts way, way too much control in the hands of developers.”

Dick Rieman of Leavenworth, who described himself as a Republican and orchardist, was among rally speakers who argued Initiative 164 was short-sighted.

“What it will do is transfer local control of land use from the cities and counties to the courts,” he said.