Two initiatives that would radically change land-use regulation and enforcement are on the ballot in Idaho and Washington. Though both mention “eminent domain,” let’s be clear from the beginning that neither measure would alter such laws.

Even the proponents don’t argue that point. In fact, the Idaho Legislature adopted eminent domain restrictions last session that are nearly identical to what Proposition 2 calls for.

Proposition 2 and Initiative 933, the Washington measure, are similar in that they require government to compensate property owners if rules and regulations damage the potential use and value of land. Idaho’s Proposition 2 applies to any restrictions adopted after passage of the initiative. Washington’s I-933 applies to changes since Jan. 1, 1996.

I-933 includes a provision to waive regulations if public agencies can’t or won’t compensate property owners. Proposition 2 simply says, “Pay up.”

In Washington, the Farm Bureau is the chief proponent. The Idaho Farm Bureau has remained neutral on Proposition 2. Libertarian groups are pushing for both measures.

Proponents say the matter is simple fairness. If a government act diminishes the value of property for public benefit, then the public should compensate owners for such “takings.” Both initiatives are silent on what’s fair when government actions increase the value of private property.

Opponents say both measures would trigger long-term degradation of environmental protections and comprehensive land-use planning. Proponents dismiss those fears by pointing to Measure 37, a similar initiative that passed muster with Oregon voters in 2004.

But the Oregon example isn’t comforting. More than 2,600 claims for compensation totaling more than $6 billion have been filed there. It’s true that no money has been paid out, but that’s because no government agency has such a fund.

Instead, environmental and land-use regulations have been waived. Interestingly, many people who voted for Measure 37 are now griping because it will allow neighbors to develop property in ways that could diminish the value of their land and their quality of life.

As with many initiatives that sound fair, clarity evaporates when trying to determine how these measures would play out.

Land-use experts predict a litigation explosion. A University of Washington study directed by respected economist and public policy analyst Glenn Pascall buttresses that fear, concluding: “If I-933 is enacted, the judiciary will, from a practical perspective, serve for an indefinite time period as the regulator of many, if not most, land-use decisions.”

The study also notes that local governments in Washington state do not have the authority to waive rules under the three major state laws that provide for environmental protections: the Growth Management Act, the State Environmental Policy Act and the Shoreline Management Act. A state Department of Ecology analysis also notes that it cannot waive those rules.

DOE also raises questions that implicate field-burning regulations, such as those imposed on wheat farmers in this region, and recent efforts to protect the Spokane River.

Proponents rail against the liberal environmentalists and government bureaucrats who have voiced predictable opposition. But skepticism goes beyond the usual suspects.

The Washington Farm Bureau had many more allies when it pushed a similar measure – Referendum 48 – in 1995. This time, many of those allies are staying on the sidelines because of the uncertainty created in the ambiguous initiative.

In Washington, the statewide Grange is sitting this one out. So is the Washington Association of Realtors, whose members are deeply divided. The Building Industry Association of Washington, which poured huge sums into Referendum 48, has made a token donation to this effort but is not actively campaigning for it. Other developer groups have said I-933 could create as many problems as it solves.

In the Skagit Valley, a farmers group that has long fought beside the Farm Bureau on waterway buffer issues opposes the initiative, saying: “On balance, current state and county land use laws create greater stability and certainty for agriculture.”

The Nature Conservancy, which generally avoids political advocacy, is campaigning against I-933.

In Idaho, opponents include the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, the Idaho Association of Realtors, Building Contractors of Southwestern Idaho, Gov. Jim Risch and Republican U.S. Rep. Butch Otter. All of them strongly support private property rights in principle, but fear the potential mayhem of Proposition 2.

No doubt states, particularly Washington, have imposed regulatory mandates that have been unfair to farmers and others. But the proper way to address that overreach is through legislatures, where all interests can come to the table in a deliberative process.

To adopt broad-based solutions written by one side of the argument is unbalanced, unhealthy and unfair.