PROP 207

[Wayne Murray]

-----Original Message-----
From: central-city-discuss-bounces at gcna.info
[mailto:central-city-discuss-bounces at gcna.info] On Behalf Of ktoneal at cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:13 AM
To: central-city-discuss at gcna.info
Subject: Re: PROP 207

 

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

 

 

_______________________________________________

--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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/central-city-discuss_gcna.info/attachments/20060912/7b60fa97/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14456 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/central-city-discuss_gcna.info/attachments/20060912/7b60fa97/attachment.jpe