PROP 207
ktoneal at cox.net
ktoneal at cox.net
Tue Sep 12 07:13:22 PDT 2006
I just got a chance to read these threads and realized my opinion was requested on this. After over 20 years of voting in Arizona, I guess I've earned the right to throw in my 2 cents.
Here's my rule of thumb when voting on Arizona propositions.
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck, then it is proabably a duck.
If it walks like a chicken, crows like a rooster, and looks like a turkey, It's probably some group of people somewhere trying to trick the Arizona voter into something they really don't want.
I'm voting no.
Kt
---- Jo Clute <josepi at doitnow.com> wrote:
> Michelle, I found this piece on prop 207 and I am under the impression that this is the actual text to the proposed amendment. Is this accurate? Most of the info I read on it, are interpretations or opinions of the outcomes but RARELY does anyone refer back to the actual-ver batum language used in the amendment. that is where I get confused.
>
> I am a fanatic about property rights-more especially my very own :-). A takings appeal is a very important right if you feel the government is "taking" value form your property"
>
> If you look at the referenced situations below, I remember reading about these situations in the newspaper and thinking wow, the gov sure is expanding their definition of "public use" and now condos are public use?
>
> what text in this amendment specifically is bad and what is the basis, in your opinion :-)
>
>
> (and I'll call ya later, too:-)
>
> fritz? what is your call on this?
>
> wayne?
>
> katie?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> AN INITIATIVE MEASURE
>
> AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 8, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 2.1;
>
> RELATING TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT.
>
> Be it enacted by the People of the State of Arizona:
>
> Section 1. Short title
>
> This act may be cited as the "Private Property Rights Protection Act".
>
> Sec. 2. Findings and declarations
>
> A. The people of Arizona find and declare:
>
> 1. Article 2, section 17 of our State Constitution declares in no uncertain terms that private property shall
>
> not be taken for private use.
>
> 2. Our Constitution further provides that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of
>
> law.
>
> 3. Finally, our Constitution does not permit property to be taken or damaged without just compensation
>
> having first been made.
>
> 4. Notwithstanding these clear constitutional rights, the state and municipal governments of Arizona
>
> consistently encroach on the rights of private citizens to own and use their property, requiring the people of this
>
> State to seek redress in our state and federal courts which have not always adequately protected private property
>
> rights as demanded by the State and Federal Constitutions. For example:
>
> (a) A recent United States Supreme Court ruling, Kelo v. City of New London, allowed a city to exercise
>
> its power of eminent domain to take a citizen's home for the purpose of transferring control of the land to a private
>
> commercial developer.
>
> (b) The City of Mesa used eminent domain to acquire and bulldoze homes for a redevelopment project that
>
> included a hotel and water park. After the developer's financing fell through the project was abandoned and the
>
> property left vacant.
>
> (c) The City of Mesa filed condemnation actions against Randy Bailey, to take his family-owned brake
>
> shop, and Patrick Dennis, to take his auto-body shop, so that local business owners could relocate and expand a
>
> hardware store and an appliance store.
>
> (d) The City of Tempe instituted an eminent domain action to condemn the home of Kenneth and Mary
>
> Ann Pillow in order to transfer their property to a private developer who planned to build upscale townhomes.
>
> (e) The City of Chandler filed a condemnation action against a fast food restaurant in order to replace the
>
> fast-food restaurant with upscale dining and retail uses.
>
> (f) In the wake of the Kelo ruling, the City of Tempe recently sought to condemn property in an industrial
>
> park in order to make way for an enormous retail shopping mall.
>
> (g) The City of Tempe told the owners of an Apache Boulevard bowling alley that the City intended to
>
> condemn their property and specifically instructed them not to make further improvements to the land. Heeding
>
> Tempe's advice, the owners made no further improvements and ultimately lost bowling league contracts and went
>
> out of business. The Arizona Court of Appeals refused the owners' request for just compensation.
>
> (h) Courts have also allowed state and local governments to impose significant prohibitions and restrictions
>
> on the use of private property without compensating the owner for the economic loss of value to that property.
>
> 5. For home owners in designated slum or blighted areas, the compensation received when a primary
>
> residence is seized is not truly just as required by our state constitution.
>
> 6. Furthermore, even when property is taken for a valid public use, the judicial processes available to
>
> property owners to obtain just compensation are burdensome, costly and unfair.
>
> B. Having made the above findings, the people of Arizona declare that all property rights are fundamental
>
> rights and that all people have inalienable rights including the right to acquire, possess, control and protect property.
>
> Therefore the citizens of the State of Arizona hereby adopt the Private Property Rights Protection Act to ensure that
>
> Arizona citizens do not lose their home or property or lose the value of their home or property without just
>
> compensation. Whenever state and local governments take or diminish the value of private property, it is the intent
>
> of this act that the owner will receive just compensation, either by negotiation or by an efficient and fair judicial
>
> process.
>
> Sec. 3. Title 12, chapter 8, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 2.1, to read:
>
> Article 2.1. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT
>
> 12-1131. PROPERTY MAY BE TAKEN ONLY FOR PUBLIC USE CONSISTENT WITH THIS
>
> ARTICLE
>
> EMINENT DOMAIN MAY BE EXERCISED ONLY IF THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS
>
> AUTHORIZED BY THIS STATE, WHETHER BY STATUTE OR OTHERWISE, AND FOR A PUBLIC USE AS
>
> DEFINED BY THIS ARTICLE.
>
> 12-1132. BURDEN OF PROOF
>
> A. IN ALL EMINENT DOMAIN ACTIONS THE JUDICIARY SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STATE
>
> CONSTITUTION'S MANDATE THAT WHENEVER AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO TAKE PRIVATE
>
> PROPERTY FOR A USE ALLEGED TO BE PUBLIC, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CONTEMPLATED
>
> USE BE REALLY PUBLIC SHALL BE A JUDICIAL QUESTION, AND DETERMINED AS SUCH WITHOUT
>
> REGARD TO ANY LEGISLATIVE ASSERTION THAT THE USE IS PUBLIC.
>
> B. IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND
>
> REDEVELOPMENT, THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE SHALL ESTABLISH
>
> BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT EACH PARCEL IS NECESSARY TO ELIMINATE A
>
> DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY CAUSED BY THE PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT
>
> CONDITION, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE BEYOND REPAIR OR UNFIT
>
> FOR HUMAN HABITATION OR USE, OR TO ACQUIRE ABANDONED PROPERTY AND THAT NO
>
> REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE TO CONDEMNATION EXISTS.
>
> 12-1133. JUST COMPENSATION; SLUM CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT
>
> IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND
>
> REDEVELOPMENT, IF PRIVATE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PRINCIPAL
>
> RESIDENCE IS TAKEN, THE OCCUPANTS SHALL BE PROVIDED A COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT
>
> DWELLING THAT IS DECENT, SAFE, AND SANITARY AS DEFINED IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL
>
> RELOCATION LAWS, SECTION 11-961 ET SEQ. AND 42 USC 4601 ET SEQ., AND THE REGULATIONS
>
> PROMULGATED THEREUNDER. AT THE OWNER'S ELECTION, IF MONETARY COMPENSATION IS
>
> DESIRED IN LIEU OF A REPLACEMENT DWELLING, THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION THAT
>
> IS MADE AND DETERMINED FOR THAT TAKING SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE SUM OF MONEY
>
> THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PURCHASE A COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT DWELLING THAT IS
>
> DECENT, SAFE, AND SANITARY AS DEFINED IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL RELOCATION LAWS
>
> AND REGULATIONS.
>
> 12-1134. DIMINUTION IN VALUE; JUST COMPENSATION
>
> A. IF THE EXISTING RIGHTS TO USE, DIVIDE, SELL OR POSSESS PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY
>
> ARE REDUCED BY THE ENACTMENT OR APPLICABILITY OF 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
>
> FROM THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ENACTED THE LAND
>
> USE LAW.
>
> B. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO LAND USE LAWS THAT:
>
> 1. LIMIT OR PROHIBIT A USE OR DIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR THE PROTECTION OF
>
> THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH AND SAFETY, INCLUDING RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO FIRE
>
> AND BUILDING CODES, HEALTH AND SANITATION, TRANSPORTATION OR TRAFFIC CONTROL,
>
> SOLID OR HAZARDOUS WASTE, AND POLLUTION CONTROL;
>
> 2. LIMIT OR PROHIBIT THE USE OR DIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY AND
>
> HISTORICALLY RECOGNIZED AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE UNDER COMMON LAW;
>
> 3. ARE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW;
>
> 4. LIMIT OR PROHIBIT THE USE OR DIVISION OF A PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
>
> HOUSING SEX OFFENDERS, SELLING ILLEGAL DRUGS, LIQUOR CONTROL, OR PORNOGRAPHY,
>
> OBSCENITY, NUDE OR TOPLESS DANCING, AND OTHER ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES IF THE
>
> LAND USE LAWS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THIS STATE AND THE UNITED
>
> STATES;
>
> 5. ESTABLISH LOCATIONS FOR UTILITY FACILITIES;
>
> 6. DO NOT DIRECTLY REGULATE AN OWNER'S LAND; OR
>
> 7. WERE ENACTED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION.
>
> C. THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ENACTED THE LAND
>
> USE LAW HAS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THAT THE LAND USE LAW IS EXEMPT
>
> PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION B.
>
> D. THE OWNER SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO FIRST SUBMIT A LAND USE APPLICATION TO
>
> REMOVE, MODIFY, VARY OR OTHERWISE ALTER THE APPLICATION OF THE LAND USE LAW TO
>
> THE OWNER'S PROPERTY AS A PREREQUISITE TO DEMANDING OR RECEIVING JUST
>
> COMPENSATION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
>
> E. IF A LAND USE LAW CONTINUES TO APPLY TO PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY MORE THAN
>
> NINETY DAYS AFTER THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY MAKES A WRITTEN DEMAND IN A SPECIFIC
>
> AMOUNT FOR JUST COMPENSATION TO THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
>
> STATE THAT ENACTED THE LAND USE LAW, THE OWNER HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR JUST
>
> COMPENSATION IN A COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, UNLESS
>
> THIS STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE AND THE OWNER REACH AN
>
> AGREEMENT ON THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION TO BE PAID, OR UNLESS THIS STATE OR
>
> POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE AMENDS, REPEALS, OR ISSUES TO THE LANDOWNER A
>
> BINDING WAIVER OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW ON THE OWNER'S SPECIFIC PARCEL.
>
> F. ANY DEMAND FOR LANDOWNER RELIEF OR ANY WAIVER THAT IS GRANTED IN LIEU OF
>
> COMPENSATION RUNS WITH THE LAND.
>
> G. AN ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION BASED ON DIMINUTION IN VALUE MUST BE
>
> MADE OR FOREVER BARRED WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LAND USE
>
> LAW, OR OF THE FIRST DATE THE REDUCTION OF THE EXISTING RIGHTS TO USE, DIVIDE, SELL OR
>
> POSSESS PROPERTY APPLIES TO THE OWNER'S PARCEL, WHICHEVER IS LATER.
>
> H. THE REMEDY CREATED BY THIS SECTION IS IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER REMEDY
>
> THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE OR THE UNITED STATES
>
> AND IS NOT INTENDED TO MODIFY OR REPLACE ANY OTHER REMEDY.
>
> I. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PROHIBITS THIS STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF
>
> THIS STATE FROM REACHING AN AGREEMENT WITH A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO WAIVE A
>
> CLAIM FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE REGARDING ANY PROPOSED ACTION BY THIS STATE OR A
>
> POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE OR ACTION REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
>
> 12-1135. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
>
> A. A PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT LIABLE TO THIS STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
>
> OF THIS STATE FOR ATTORNEY FEES OR COSTS IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION OR IN ANY
>
> ACTION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE.
>
> B. A PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS AND
>
> EXPENSES IN EVERY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION IN WHICH THE TAKING IS FOUND TO BE NOT FOR
>
> A PUBLIC USE.
>
> C. IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND
>
> REDEVELOPMENT, A PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES IN
>
> EVERY CASE IN WHICH THE FINAL AMOUNT OFFERED BY THE MUNICIPALITY WAS LESS THAN
>
> THE AMOUNT ASCERTAINED BY A JURY OR THE COURT IF A JURY IS WAIVED BY THE PROPERTY
>
> OWNER.
>
> D. A PREVAILING PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION THAT IS BASED ON
>
> DIMINUTION IN VALUE PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-1134 MAY BE AWARDED COSTS, EXPENSES
>
> AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES.
>
> 12-1136. DEFINITIONS
>
> IN THIS ARTICLE, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:
>
> 1. "FAIR MARKET VALUE" MEANS THE MOST LIKELY PRICE ESTIMATED IN TERMS OF
>
> MONEY WHICH THE LAND WOULD BRING IF EXPOSED FOR SALE IN THE OPEN MARKET, WITH
>
> REASONABLE TIME ALLOWED IN WHICH TO FIND A PURCHASER, BUYING WITH KNOWLEDGE OF
>
> ALL THE USES AND PURPOSES TO WHICH IT IS ADAPTED AND FOR WHICH IT IS CAPABLE.
>
> 2. "JUST COMPENSATION" FOR PURPOSES OF AN ACTION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE
>
> MEANS THE SUM OF MONEY THAT IS EQUAL TO THE REDUCTION IN FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE
>
> PROPERTY RESULTING FROM THE ENACTMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW AS OF THE DATE OF
>
> ENACTMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW.
>
> 3. "LAND USE LAW" MEANS ANY STATUTE, RULE, ORDINANCE, RESOLUTION OR LAW
>
> ENACTED BY THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT REGULATES THE
>
> USE OR DIVISION OF LAND OR ANY INTEREST IN LAND OR THAT REGULATES ACCEPTED
>
> FARMING OR FORESTRY PRACTICES.
>
> 4. "OWNER" MEANS THE HOLDER OF FEE TITLE TO THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY.
>
> 5. "PUBLIC USE":
>
> (a) MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
>
> (i) THE POSSESSION, OCCUPATION, AND ENJOYMENT OF THE LAND BY THE GENERAL
>
> PUBLIC, OR BY PUBLIC AGENCIES;
>
> (ii) THE USE OF LAND FOR THE CREATION OR FUNCTIONING OF UTILITIES;
>
> (iii) THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY TO ELIMINATE A DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC
>
> HEALTH OR SAFETY CAUSED BY THE PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION, INCLUDING THE
>
> REMOVAL OF A STRUCTURE THAT IS BEYOND REPAIR OR UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION OR
>
> USE; OR
>
> (iv) THE ACQUISITION OF ABANDONED PROPERTY.
>
> (b) DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING
>
> AN INCREASE IN TAX BASE, TAX REVENUES, EMPLOYMENT OR GENERAL ECONOMIC HEALTH.
>
> 6. "TAKEN" AND "TAKING" MEAN THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OR USE FROM A
>
> PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE OR TO
>
> ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE.
>
> 12-1137. APPLICABILITY
>
> IF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS ARTICLE AND ANY OTHER LAW ARISES, THIS ARTICLE
>
> CONTROLS.
>
> 12-1138. SEVERABILITY
>
> IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR ITS APPLICATION TO ANY PERSON OR CIRCUMSTANCE
>
> IS HELD INVALID THAT INVALIDITY DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER PROVISIONS OR APPLICATIONS OF
>
> THE ACT THAT CAN BE GIVEN EFFECT WITHOUT THE INVALID PROVISION OR APPLICATION, AND
>
> TO THIS END THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT ARE SEVERABLE.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michelle Steinberg
> To: central-city-discuss at gcna.info
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 11:26 AM
> Subject: Re: PROP 207
>
>
> http://www.noprop207.org/index.htm
> http://www.hopeforarizona.com/
>
> these are the two websites re: Prop 207
>
> In my opinion, MJ is right in her assessment
>
> VOTE today to change the world tomorrow.
> REGISTER AND VOTE!!
> www.servicearizona.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jo Clute
> To: central-city-discuss at gcna.info
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 12:31 AM
> Subject: PROP 207
>
>
> Can someone PLEASE.....explain prop 207 to me or give me their opinions, I am so confused on this topic and how this prop is written.
>
> I am extremely PRO personal property rights but I have also heard that this prop is pro personal rights cloaked in darkness.
>
> Anywone??
>
> This is suppossed to be a heated topic coming up with the election.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> --Note--
> By replying to this email, you will be sending to the entire list.
> Be sure to change the recipient of the email if you do not want to post
> to the central-city-discuss list.
>
> --Disclaimer--
> The messages exchanged on this list in no way reflect the official
> position of the Greater Coronado Neighborhood association. This e-mail
> list is maintained by an outside source, with no financial tie, or
> editorial directive from the Greater Coronado Neighborhood Association.
>
> To maintain your subscription, visit http://www.gcna.info/list
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> --Note--
> By replying to this email, you will be sending to the entire list.
> Be sure to change the recipient of the email if you do not want to post
> to the central-city-discuss list.
>
> --Disclaimer--
> The messages exchanged on this list in no way reflect the official
> position of the Greater Coronado Neighborhood association. This e-mail
> list is maintained by an outside source, with no financial tie, or
> editorial directive from the Greater Coronado Neighborhood Association.
>
> To maintain your subscription, visit http://www.gcna.info/list
More information about the central-city-discuss
mailing list