[Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th

[David Morelli]

On Aug 21, 2007, at 10:34 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> Well, that's a very scary issue Ed. When the government runs up a  
> bill, we tax payers have to foot it, whether it's blowing up Iraq  
> or taking people's rights to their land. In this case, it seems  
> like the government has run up an unknown bill under the pre-M37  
> rules.

The pre M37 rules were a compromise.  The land owners received  
restrictions in their uses of land, and the public bodies were  
obligated to plan for growth and accept growth.  If the property  
owners are let out of their side of the bargain, the public bodies  
should be next.  Prior to the land use laws cities, counties and  
service agencies were free to decide to accept or reject new  
connections.  When we go back to that standard, communities don't  
have to accept growth, the eighty unit home development doesn't get  
permission to connect to sewer, water or roads, and the twenty unit  
development doesn't automatically get police, fire or school services.
>
> ...
> Of course, the costs are only for those claims the state pays  
> instead of letting the land owner build. Anyone who gets permission  
> to build doesn't get a dime from the state.

So what is the value of the regulations if they are only suggestions?
>
> Of the claims that are left and found legitimate,..., but even if  
> that happens, it's a very limited extension of the communities and  
> it's a one-time extension that won't be repeated.

Define "enforced".  The M37 claim may be made the first time that a  
regulation is enforced against a property.  If the owner makes their  
first request for a subdivision next year, and the agency says "no,  
it isn't allowed" expect a claim of "enforcement", because that is  
what lawyers are paid to do.  If they wait until the market heats  
back up in four years, expect claims to resurface on properties that  
haven't already filed, and possibly on properties that withdrew  
filings before the denial could be made.

Also, the filing window reopens every time a rule is revised.  Unless  
you feel that the land use process is full and complete.  Of course  
we could take the long term view, and deny all of the claims, pay the  
money, hold the line on development at the current level for a year  
or two, and then recover the M37 expenses by charging for changes to  
land use rules that increase the market value of the property.  So,  
if you just bought your home on the highway on the coast, and you  
decide to request a zone change to allow you do conduct a business,  
the community could allow for the increased use of the property and  
charge you the difference between the current value and the new value  
created when the government changes the regulation.  At least that  
would be consistent.  Oh, oh!  Enacting the enabling legislation  
would reduce the value of the property and trigger M37 claims, oh my.

>
> Still, I assume there will be those we agree don't deserve approval  
> to build. They will cost something.

I attended a presentation at the UCC Church today by Hannah Toomey,  
and I kept hearing echoes of this discussion.  She was talking about  
her father's experience as a slave.  And I remembered that one issue  
that delayed emancipation was the question of compensation of slave  
owners for the loss of their property.  "Property rights" exist, but  
the question isn't always as black and white as we may wish.  (pun  
intended)

David