AgdaPkt 2006-07-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9A Page 14 Major Provisions of The Taxpayer Trap Initiative The Bait: . Prohibits use of eminent domain unless the property acquired is owned and occupied by a governmental agency. This provision is the bait in the taxpayer trap. While everyone agrees some eminent domain reform is needed, the way this provision is crafted would also result in negative consequences and significantly hinder community revitalization efforts and the ability of local agencies to clean up blight, eliminate slum lords, build affordable housing, and reduce crime though partnerships with the private sector. The Trap: . Changes laws defining compensable damages and severely and neaativelv impacts state & local aovernments' abilitY to enact and enforce environmental, land use. consumer protection and housina laws and regulations. The initiative redefines "damage" to require payment for any government action that someone claims will result in economic loss to property - no matter how unreasonable that claim. This "trap" would result in frivolous lawsuits, huge payouts to a few wealthy landowners, and increased administrative costs at taxpayers' expense. For example: If voters act to limit the size of a development for environmental or traffic concems to 100 homes, and the developer claims the property could hold 200 homes, the measure allows the developer to sue to force taxpayers to pay his company the value for the 100 homes he wasn't allowed to build, Taxpayers would be on the hook for the value of the property at the more dense use, even though the community could not handle or did not want such a development. 0 If a city approves a new commercial development, adjacent landowners could demand to be compensated for the effects of increased traffic on lowering their property values. 0 0 If the state enacts a new law restricting certain telemarketing practices, under this initiative, the telemarketers could file a lawsuit to obtain massive taxpayer payouts for the purported impact of these laws on their business. . Redefines "Just compensation" and greatly increases the cost of all property acquisitions by state and local agencies for needed infrastructure like schools, roads, levees, and other public works. The initiative changes the current standard which requires compensation at "fair market value", and requires new levels of inflated payouts based on the value of the property as the government intends to use it. This "trap. would result in windfall payouts to a few property owners - at the expense of common taxpayers - or make infrastructure projects so prohibitively expensive that many will simply not get completed. 0 For example, if a city acquires property for an airport, the owner could seek compensation for the value of the property as though an airport were already built there, regardless of whether or not the owner could have achieved such a use on his or her own, or under the applicable zoning. . Imposes new taxpayer costs. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst cites" f)Otentiallv maior future costs" to deal with regulatory takings provisions and "potentially major changes in governmental costs to acquire property for Dublic Durooses. " 6