Lynda/WA
09-10-2001, 05:59 PM
Should the government have to pay landowners when it enacts laws, policies ect that decrease the value of land? Each state varies on their policies and it sounds like even local areas vary. Oregon voters passed a measure that would reimburse landowners. It's currently before a judge.
This was a topic on the radio today. Enviromentalist groups say it would prevent laws from being passed that would create restrictions on land and home owners. Or that it would prevent laws from being enforced. The reasoning is that mainly local governments would need to pay out money.
Here are some examples that people called in from their own experiences. People would buy land and see if it was in designated flood areas or classified as wetlands. After they owned the land it would be rezoned. Being in a wetland essentially makes your land useless. When we were looking at houses one of the few we viewed was butressed up against a wetland area. As soon as we found that out we left.
Another example - A man bought a couple of acres in a farming area. The law said that to build a house in the farming area you need to earn 40,000$ from your crops. The purpose is to keep the land farmland and not have people building *hobby* farms. Regardless if you had 1 acre or 100 federal regulations said you needed to show you could earn that amount to prove it was a farm. He filed the papers to be allowed to build his home. They said he needed to already be farming and prove he was already earning that. He asked to file a protest. First they said he couldn't then they said that if he did they would tie him up in court for 30 yrs. Then the income requirement went up from 40,000 to 80,000. Because they changed the rules after the fact he may not be allowed to live on his land that he is farming. BTW according to federal regs he could.
Another example that comes to mind is my parent's land. They have to allow a power line run through their land. Because of it they have were unable to sell (3 buyers backed out when the power line decision was made). They aren't allowed to use this land, have to pay taxes on it, and will have problems selling it for less money. Should the government have to pay them for making a decision that costs them money?
This was a topic on the radio today. Enviromentalist groups say it would prevent laws from being passed that would create restrictions on land and home owners. Or that it would prevent laws from being enforced. The reasoning is that mainly local governments would need to pay out money.
Here are some examples that people called in from their own experiences. People would buy land and see if it was in designated flood areas or classified as wetlands. After they owned the land it would be rezoned. Being in a wetland essentially makes your land useless. When we were looking at houses one of the few we viewed was butressed up against a wetland area. As soon as we found that out we left.
Another example - A man bought a couple of acres in a farming area. The law said that to build a house in the farming area you need to earn 40,000$ from your crops. The purpose is to keep the land farmland and not have people building *hobby* farms. Regardless if you had 1 acre or 100 federal regulations said you needed to show you could earn that amount to prove it was a farm. He filed the papers to be allowed to build his home. They said he needed to already be farming and prove he was already earning that. He asked to file a protest. First they said he couldn't then they said that if he did they would tie him up in court for 30 yrs. Then the income requirement went up from 40,000 to 80,000. Because they changed the rules after the fact he may not be allowed to live on his land that he is farming. BTW according to federal regs he could.
Another example that comes to mind is my parent's land. They have to allow a power line run through their land. Because of it they have were unable to sell (3 buyers backed out when the power line decision was made). They aren't allowed to use this land, have to pay taxes on it, and will have problems selling it for less money. Should the government have to pay them for making a decision that costs them money?