2006 Arizona Proposition 207

Last updated
Arizona Proposition 207 (2006)
Flag of Arizona.svg
Private Property Rights Protection
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes955,53364.80%
Light brown x.svgNo519,16135.20%

Arizona Proposition 207, a 2006 ballot initiative officially titled the Private Property Rights Protection Act, requires the government to reimburse land owners when regulations result in a decrease in the property's value, and also prevents government from exercising eminent domain on behalf of a private party. It was approved by a 64.8% margin. [1] The land use portion of this proposition is similar to Oregon's 2004 Ballot Measure 37, [2] and the eminent domain portion is similar to initiatives advanced in numerous states following the 2005 US Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London .

Contents

The Private Property Rights Protection Act

Proposition 207, which was officially titled the “Private Property Rights Protection Act,” has been codified at Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 12–1134. The Act provides that “[i]f the existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess private real property are reduced by...any land use law enacted after the date the property is transferred to the owner and such action reduces the fair market value of the property the owner is entitled to just compensation[.]” Landowners are entitled to compensation only if the challenged regulation continues to apply to their property 90 days after filing a claim, allowing the government to grant waivers in lieu of compensation. The Act specifically declares that waivers run with the land and are not personal to the owners that first obtain them.

The Act exempts the following categories of regulation from the compensation/waiver requirement: (1) laws intended to protect the public health and safety (e.g. building codes, health and sanitation laws, transportation and traffic control, solid and hazardous waste regulations, and pollution controls); (2) law that “[l]imit or prohibit the use or division of real property commonly and historically recognized as a public nuisance under common law”; (3) regulations required under federal law; (4) regulations of adult businesses, housing for sex offenders, liquor, and other undesirable uses; (5) laws necessary to establish locations for utility facilities; (6) laws that “[d]o not directly regulate an owner’s land”; and (7) laws enacted before Proposition 207.

Although opponents to Proposition 207 argued that the law would result in many lawsuits, few have been brought.

Supporters

The campaign for Proposition 207 was funded almost entirely from outside the state of Arizona, through groups run by New York libertarian and real estate developer Howie Rich. [3]

Advocates of Proposition 207 said it prevents the government from taking private property for third-party private development merely to increase tax revenue, and ensures just compensation for property owners in public use takings and when governmental regulation devalues property.

The Goldwater Institute claims credit for developing the policy proposal. [4]

Opponents

Opponents to Proposition 207 said the measure would limit the ability of the state, counties, cities and towns to implement land use regulations that might have the impact of reducing property values. Large landowners and corporations could demand huge payouts from state and local taxpayers just by claiming a law has harmed the value of their property or business, no matter how important the law may be or how far-fetched the claim.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conservation easement</span> Type of legal arrangement applying to land

In the United States, a conservation easement is a power invested in a qualified land conservation organization called a "land trust", or a governmental entity to constrain, as to a specified land area, the exercise of rights otherwise held by a landowner so as to achieve certain conservation purposes. It is an interest in real property established by agreement between a landowner and land trust or unit of government. The conservation easement "runs with the land", meaning it is applicable to both present and future owners of the land. The grant of conservation easement, as with any real property interest, is part of the chain of title for the property and is normally recorded in local land records.

In United States constitutional law, a regulatory taking occurs when governmental regulations limit the use of private property to such a degree that the landowner is effectively deprived of all economically reasonable use or value of their property. Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution governments are required to pay just compensation for such takings. The amendment is incorporated to the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Eminent domain, land acquisition, compulsory purchase, resumption, resumption/compulsory acquisition, or expropriation is the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use. It does not include the power to take and transfer ownership of private property from one property owner to another private property owner without a valid public purpose. This power can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized by the legislature to exercise the functions of public character.

Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court voted 8–0 to hold that private property could be taken for a public purpose with just compensation. The case laid the foundation for the Court's later important public use cases, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) and Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the case, plaintiff Susette Kelo sued the city of New London, Connecticut, for violating her civil rights after the city tried to acquire her house's property through eminent domain so that the land could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan". Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the five-justice majority that the city's use of eminent domain was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from economic growth qualified as "public use".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1964 California Proposition 14</span> 1964 California ballot proposition

California Proposition 14 was a November 1964 initiative ballot measure that amended the California state constitution to nullify the 1963 Rumford Fair Housing Act, thereby allowing property sellers, landlords and their agents to openly discriminate on ethnic grounds when selling or letting accommodations, as they had been permitted to before 1963. The proposition became law after receiving support from 65% of voters. In 1966, the California Supreme Court in a 5–2 split decision declared Proposition 14 unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision in 1967 in Reitman v. Mulkey.

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that whether a regulatory act constitutes a taking requiring compensation depends on the extent of diminution in the value of the property.

Oregon Ballot Measure 37 was a controversial land-use ballot initiative that passed in the U.S. state of Oregon in 2004 and is now codified as Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 195.305. Measure 37 has figured prominently in debates about the rights of property owners versus the public's right to enforce environmental and other land use regulations. Voters passed Measure 49 in 2007, substantially reducing the impact of Measure 37.

Navigable servitude is a doctrine in United States constitutional law that gives the federal government the right to regulate navigable waterways as an extension of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution. It is also sometimes called federal navigational servitude.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Washington Initiative 933</span>

Ballot Initiative 933 was a ballot initiative in the U.S. state of Washington in 2006. It concerned land use planning, and was voted down by 59% in the 2006 elections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 218</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Named the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in June 1978. Proposition 218 was approved and adopted by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.

Howard S. Rich, also known as Howie Rich is a real estate investor who is notable for funding libertarian-oriented political initiatives such as term limits, school choice, parental rights regarding education, limited government and property rights. He has published essays advocating these positions. He established advocacy organizations such as Americans for Limited Government and U.S. Term Limits. He is the former chairman of the Legislative Education Action Drive and the Parents in Charge Foundation. Rich has been described as one of the "lower-profile moneymen in American politics" but as a prominent "force in elections across the country." Rich focuses his advocacy mostly on local issues like term limits, not on national campaigns, and doesn't see himself as leaning right or left. He is an effective advocate; National Public Radio identified Rich as a leader behind the independent groups with potential to influence elections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 California Proposition 90</span> Failed ballot proposition on government impacts to property

California Proposition 90 was a 2006 ballot initiative in the state of California, United States. Passing of the initiative would have made two changes to California law:

Idaho Proposition 2 was a 2006 ballot initiative in the state of Idaho, U.S. that aimed to force government to reimburse property owners whose property value is decreased as a result of government regulation.

Land and property laws in Israel are the property law component of Israeli law, providing the legal framework for the ownership and other in rem rights towards all forms of property in Israel, including real estate (land) and movable property. Besides tangible property, economic rights are also usually treated as property, in addition to being covered by the law of obligations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Propositions 98 and 99</span> Ballot measures in California

California Propositions 98 and 99 were competing ballot propositions in the U.S. state of California to limit the use of eminent domain and possibly rent control. They were voted on June 3, 2008; proposition 98 failed, while proposition 99 passed.

Land acquisition is the power of the union or a state government in India to take private land for public, and to compensate the original owners and other persons affected due to such acquisition.

Eminent domain in the United States refers to the power of a state or the federal government to take private property for public use while requiring just compensation to be given to the original owner. It can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized to exercise the functions of public character.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California elections</span>

The California state elections in 2020 were held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Unlike previous election cycles, the primary elections were held on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020.

References

  1. 2006 General Election – Ballot Measures Archived December 7, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  2. de Place, Eric (2006-10-12). "Prop. 207 supporters should ask how Oregon's 37 measures up". Tucson Citizen. Retrieved 2006-12-22.
  3. Amanda J. Crawford (2006-09-01). "U.S. group funds state initiative on property". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved 2007-01-16.
  4. "30 Milestones for 30+ Years of Advancing Freedom". 18 November 2018.