Property Rights | ||||||||||
Results | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Results by county:
| ||||||||||
Source: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections [1] |
Elections in Washington |
---|
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. [2]
The controversial initiative pitted the interests of real estate developers against environmental protection and preservation of natural resources. [3]
The initiative is also known as I-933, titled "Property Rights" by the Secretary of State, "The Property Fairness Initiative" by its supporters, and the "Developers Initiative" by its opponents.
I-933 called for government agencies in the State of Washington to evaluate the effects directly on private real and personal property when implementing regulations or ordinances. It called for these government agencies to follow certain policies: either pay compensation when "damaging" property, to consider "less restrictive means," or to waive the implementation of the regulation. [4]
According to a study conducted by the University of Washington [5] the initiative would have cost taxpayers an estimated $7.8 Billion during the first five years after enactment. The same study also found that "Virtually every county would likely be faced with claims, yet none have a tax revenue source in place for paying them."
I-933 would have impacted critical areas that are protected to prevent flooding and protect fish, wildlife and groundwater. [5] Though it was described as establishing a "pay or waive" system, I-933 did not have the power to permit waivers in most relevant cases. This would have resulted in a "stymied decision" and uncertainty for both landowners and local governments, with the result of slowing down development permits. [5]
I-933 would likely have led to a greater role for federal government in the region. [5]
The initiative would have had implications not only for real estate, but on intellectual property rights, water rights, motor vehicles, securities and intangible commercial assets. [5]
Supporters of I-933 argued that the proposal would have protected private property owners from "excessive land-use regulations or proposed regulations that damage the use and value of private property."
A significant portion of the financial support for the campaign came from Americans for Limited Government, a libertarian-oriented group based in Illinois. [6]
Other supporters of the measure included:
Opponents of the initiative questioned why taxpayers should have "to pay some land owners to follow laws already on the books or waive those protections for the community". [7] I-933 required taxpayers to pay legal fees for all claims, including retroactive claims. Opponents of the proposal also pointed out that the Washington Farm Bureau represents primarily large corporations and has an established record of supporting Republican candidates with PAC money. [8] The Association of Washington Cities argued the Initiative would have cost taxpayers 4.5 billion dollars a year in claims against municipalities. Environmentalists claimed "Initiative 933 would dismantle ... (environmental) protections, making it extremely difficult to enforce the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act." Moreover, I-933 allocated no funding for the payments it required, raising fears that taxes would have been increased and/or that funding to key infrastructural programs would have been cut. Lobbyists in favor of the bill dismissed these accusations as scare tactics. [9] On October 10, 2006, all six of Washington's living former governors joined current Gov. Christine Gregoire to oppose Initiative 933. "I-933 is an extremely vague and loophole-ridden initiative that exposes our taxpayers to great expense," said former Gov. Gary Locke. [10]
Organizations that opposed the initiative included: [11]
I-933 was similar to Initiative 164, a 1995 bill passed by the Washington legislature and subsequently repealed by ballot initiative (referendum 48.)
It was also similar to Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004), [12] as well as numerous 2006 initiatives promoted in other states (nearly all of which were defeated.)
Proposition 13 is an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978 by a nearly two to one margin. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.
The Oregon tax revolt is a political movement in Oregon which advocates for lower taxes. This movement is part of a larger anti-tax movement in the western United States which began with the enactment of Proposition 13 in California. The tax revolt, carried out in large part by a series of citizens' initiatives and referendums, has reshaped the debate about taxes and public services in Oregon.
Timothy Donald Eyman is an American anti-tax activist and businessman.
The Taxpayer Bill of Rights is a concept advocated by conservative and free market libertarian groups, primarily in the United States, as a way of limiting the growth of government. It is not a charter of rights but a provision requiring that increases in overall tax revenue be tied to inflation and population increases unless larger increases are approved by referendum.
Bill Sizemore is an American political activist and writer in Redmond, Oregon, United States. Sizemore has never held elected office, but has nonetheless been a major political figure in Oregon since the 1990s. He is considered one of the main proponents of the Oregon tax revolt, a movement that seeks to reduce taxes in the state. Oregon Taxpayers United, a political action committee he founded in 1993, has advanced numerous ballot initiatives limiting taxation, and has opposed spending initiatives. Sizemore made an unsuccessful run for Governor of Oregon in 1998. He also announced his intention to run for governor in 2010, but was indicted by the state on charges of tax evasion. The charges were later amended to failure to file tax returns.
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.
Initiative 920 (I-920) was a highly controversial campaign to repeal the estate tax in the U.S. state of Washington. Washington state law directs that revenues collected from the estate tax be placed into the Education Legacy Trust account, which funds financial aid for higher education. The initiative failed, with 33.54 percent voting for and 66.46 percent against.
Ballot Initiative 937 is a clean energy initiative passed in the US state of Washington, appearing on the ballot in the November 2006 elections. It passed with 52 percent of the vote.
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.
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. The land use portion of this proposition is similar to Oregon's 2004 Ballot Measure 37, 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.
Ballot Measure 7, an Oregon, United States ballot initiative that passed with over 53% approval in 2000, amended the Oregon Constitution, requiring the government to reimburse land owners when regulations reduced the value of their property.
The Northwest Progressive Institute (NPI) is a left wing think tank based in Redmond, Washington, founded in 2003 and incorporated in 2005. It uses technology, public policy research, and political advocacy to advance progressive causes in the Pacific Northwest region as well as across the United States. It describes itself as "a netroots powered strategy center working to raise America's quality of life through innovative research and imaginative advocacy."
The State Income Tax Repeal, also known as Massachusetts Question 1, was one of the 2008 ballot measures that appeared on the November 4, 2008 ballot in the U.S. state of Massachusetts. Voters were asked whether or not they approved of the proposed measure which, if it had passed, would have ended the 5.3% income tax in Massachusetts on wages, interest, dividends and capital gains. Ultimately, Massachusetts voters defeated Question 1 by a wide margin, with approximately 70% opposed versus 30% in favor.
Oregon Ballot Measure 59 was an initiated state statute ballot measure sponsored by Bill Sizemore that appeared on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot in Oregon, United States. If it had passed, Oregon would have join Alabama, Iowa, and Louisiana as the only states to allow federal income taxes to be fully deducted on state income tax returns.
The South Dakota Open and Clean Government Act, or Initiated Measure 10, was a South Dakota initiative that would ban taxpayer-funded lobbying, stop the exchange of campaign donations for state contracts, and open a website with information on state contracts. The Open and Clean Government Act was proposed as a citizen-initiated state statute and appeared on the November 4, 2008 ballot.
Proposition 23 was a California ballot proposition that was on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot. It was defeated by California voters during the statewide election by a 23% margin. If passed, it would have suspended AB 32, a law enacted in 2006, legally referred to its long name, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Sponsors of the initiative referred to their measure as the California Jobs Initiative while opponents called it the Dirty Energy Prop.
Massachusetts Question 3, filed under the name, the 3 percent Sales Tax Relief Act, appears on the November 2, 2010 ballot in the state of Massachusetts as an initiative. The measure, if enacted by voters, would reduce the state sales tax rate from 6.25 to 3 percent. The measure was sponsored by the Alliance to Roll Back Taxes headed by Carla Howell. The measure would be enacted into a law 30 days after the election if approved by voters.
Washington Initiative 1240 "concerns creation of a public charter school system" was an initiative that appeared on the Washington state general ballot in November 2012. Originally filed with the Washington Secretary of State on May 31, proponents and paid signature gatherers collected enough signatures to be certified for the ballot on July 25, making it one of the fastest initiatives ever to do so, at an estimated cost of more than $6 per signature. Proposed charter schools would receive public funding but not be governed by local school districts. An August 2012 financial impact study by the state Office of Financial Management estimated "an indeterminate, but non-zero, fiscal impact to local public school districts" and "known state agency implementation costs" of at least $3 million in the first five years. The initiative was approved by voters in November 2012.
California Proposition 15 was a failed citizen-initiated proposition on the November 3, 2020, ballot. It would have provided $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increased taxes on large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties for homeowners or renters. The measure failed by a small margin of about four percentage points.
California Proposition 19 (2020), also referred to as Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11, is an amendment of the Constitution of California that was narrowly approved by voters in the general election on November 3, 2020, with just over 51% of the vote. The legislation increases the property tax burden on owners of inherited property to provide expanded property tax benefits to homeowners ages 55 years and older, disabled homeowners, and victims of natural disasters, and fund wildfire response. According to the California Legislative Analyst, Proposition 19 is a large net tax increase "of hundreds of millions of dollars per year."