Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2007

Home

~ NEWS BRIEFS AlASKAN BOROUGH DEFEATS MEASURE 37 CLONE By Lora Lucero, A/CP Perhaps the tide has turned. The clones of Oregon's private property rights Measure 37 that were on a number of state ballots last November don't s'eem to be reappearing this year-with one exception. Proposition 1-the Private Property Protection Act-was on a local ballot in October 2007 and soundly defeated. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, located about 40 miles northeast of Anchor- . age, Alaska, might seem an unlikely location for a "payor waive" ballot measure. On closer examination, there are some similari- ties between Oregon's Willamette Valley and the lush farmlands of the Matanuska and Susitna Valleys that make it ripe for a pri- vate property rights battleground. The bor- ough (population 77.174) is the fastest grow- ing area in Alaska and facing tremendous development pressure because of its rela- tively affordable housing stock and easy commute to Anchorage. land-use regula- tions and plans are certainly important tools to address these growth challenges. local residents Penny Nixon and Dennis Oakland cosponsored Proposition 1 and col- lected the 2,000 signatures needed to qualify it for the ballot. They took Oregon's Measure 37 as their guide, even though nearly every- one in Oregon appears to be disillusioned with Measure 37 three years after it was passed. The Oregon Department of land Conservation and Development reports it has received 6,750 claims for private property pro- tection, representing more than $19 billion in compensation. Oregon is being hit hardest by claims on farmland and prime forest, followed by claims for billboards and gravel mines. Opposition to Proposition 1 resulted in some odd bedfellows, including the Alaska Nature Conservancy, the Mat-Su Valley Board of Realtors, the Mat-Su Home Builders Association, and an oil and gas developer, among others. They raised 10 times as much as the supporters, more than $112,000. The Alaska Nature Conservancy is work- ing with more than 20 other groups to protect the Mat-Su salmon stocks as part of the Mat- Su Basin Salmon Conservation Partnership. "We saw Prop. 1 as a threat to our ability to work within this partnership," said Kurt Parkan, the external affairs director of the conservancy. "When you have fragmented habitat and unplanned development and you don't know with any degree of certainty how it's going to develop, it's difficult for a broad- based group like this partnership to reach our goals." The landslide defeat on October 2 C70.6 percent opposed Proposition 1) was a strong signal that the lessons frol)1 Oregon have res- onated outside of that state. Opponents had argued that Proposition .1 was poorly written and vague and opened the Borough and municipalities up to costly lawsuits and mon- etary claims. On the other side, one of the cosponsors called the defeat a "stunning vic- tory for socialism." Oregon voters will have a compromise 'ballot measure to consider in November. Measure 49 proposes to. amend Measure 37- a "fix:' that a broad coalition of groups ham- mered out earlier this year. The Oregon Chapter of APA is supporting Measure 49. Proponents claim that Measure 49: "protects the property rights of small indi- vidual landowners by immediately allowing them up to three houses on their property, if the law allowed it when they bought their land. And it will pass those rights on to a surviving spouse or to someone who pur- chases the property from the current owner-something that Measure 37 did not do. . . . Additionally, property owners can build up to 10 houses ifthey can document a financial loss equal to the value of the additional houses-as voters intended with passing 37. If property is high-value farm- land, forests, or places with limited water supplies-as defined in the act, then only up to three home sites may be added. Ballot Measure 49 closes the loopholes and protects the places that make Oregon special, stopping the abuse of huge hous- ing subdivisions, strip malls, and industrial development where they simply don't belong. Following passage of Measure 49, commercial and industrial development, as well as large subdivisions, must proceed through the existing land-use planning and development processes." Effective messaging, in addition to the strong coalition and consensus building, appears to give Measure 49 a good chance for passage in November. Some of the Oregon stories show Hal Balin sharing how Measure 49 restores farmland protection; Stephen Williams explaining that Measure 37 was not meant for gravel pits; Peter Hayes opining that Measure 49 protects tim- berlands and the rights of timberland own- ers; Richard Holcomb arguing that with the loss of each acre of agricultural land goes the economy of scale needed to succeed; Carole Nelson questioning a Measure 37 . subdivision in a floodplain; and lori Hamilton explaining that measure 49 puts place before pocketbook. The lessons planners might take away from both the October election in Mat-Su Borough and the upcoming election in Oregon is that personal stories are critical to help vot- ers understand what is at stake. Using the art and science of planning to help the voters understand the impacts of a "payor waive" measure on the future of their community can make all the difference. Lara Lucero, A/CP, is editor of Planning and Environmental law, and staff liaison to APA's amicus curiae committee. VOL. 24, NO. 11 Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $75 (U.S.) and $100 (foreign). W. Paul farmer, FAIC?, Executive Director; William R. Klein, AIC?, Director of Research. Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548-0135) is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, AICP, and David Morley, Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Copyright @2007 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning Association also has offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 2?036; www.planning.org. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. ZONING PRACTICE 11.07 AMERICAN PlANNING ASSOCIATION Ipa9l5