Opposition to Proposition 2 mounts

BOISE – More state leaders and business interests are coming out against Proposition 2, the initiative on the Nov. 7 ballot that would require government to pay property owners if any land-use regulation or change in farming or forest practice rules diminishes their potential profits from full development of their land.

Idaho Gov. Jim Risch, citing legal problems, said he is against the proposed law. Republican candidate for governor Butch Otter, after saying for weeks he was undecided on the measure, also has now come out against it.

In addition, the Coeur d’Alene Area Chamber of Commerce said it opposes Proposition 2. Chamber officials said it would alter neighborhoods and raze rural landscapes because of “slyly disguised wording intended to confuse voters.”

Also Wednesday, the Idaho Association of Realtors came out against Proposition 2, calling it “a New York solution in search of an Idaho problem.” The association had the measure analyzed by experts on Idaho’s land-use planning process and by legal specialists, and determined that it would have “lasting negative impacts on Idaho’s economy and land-use planning efforts,” while also disrupting communities and the real estate market.

Laird Maxwell, lead sponsor of Proposition 2, was unfazed by the mounting opposition, which he said is being pushed by “some of the most radical left-wing groups in America.”

He added that he’s not surprised politicians would oppose his measure, “because we’re taking power away from politicians.”

Otter’s Democratic opponent in the race for governor, Jerry Brady, long has opposed the measure, as has Risch’s Democratic challenger in his bid for another four-year term as lieutenant governor, former Congressman Larry LaRocco.

Ted Dunlap, Libertarian candidate for governor, said he supports the measure “absolutely,” because “government can’t be constituted to take property.”

Otter, in a statement, said protecting private property rights “is one of my core values,” but he called the initiative “a recipe for lots of lawsuits, which makes it tough for me to recommend it.”

Risch said Wednesday that Idaho law already limits both eminent domain and “takings” of private property through government action, the two topics the initiative purports to address.

“The takings law in Idaho is well-developed, it’s been there for a long time,” said Risch, an attorney.

“We’ve had a fair amount of litigation so that we understand what property right must be paid for.”

Already, under current Idaho law and the state and federal constitutions, “If the government takes a property right of yours, the government has to pay for it,” Risch said. “We have a constitutional provision that prohibits the government from taking your property.”

Risch said the wording of the ballot initiative is unclear and problematic.

“The problem becomes the definition of takings, and it gets very gray,” he said. “In my judgment, it’s going to spawn a tremendous amount of litigation.”

The Coeur d’Alene chamber’s board of trustees, which represents 1,300 members, voted to oppose the measure because it “poses a significant threat” to the ability of communities to plan and manage growth, a chamber press release said.

The release added that it’s unsettling that supporters of the initiative are financed almost exclusively by out-of-state groups.

Based on the experience in Oregon, the chamber said compensatory claims would likely total in the billions, requiring taxpayers to foot the bill.

Paying for claims and lawsuits could jeopardize funding for schools, public safety, roads and other essential services.

“Ultimately, the consequences of this initiative would severely threaten the continued prosperity of our state and our region’s businesses,” the release said.