Prop. 2 is the wrong answer

To the Editor:

In last week's edition of the Bonners Ferry Herald, I appreciated reading letters regarding Proposition 2, in particular the one written by my long-time acquaintance Bob Vickaryous. I consider Bob a good neighbor and a friend I enjoy seeing on those occasions we are brought together. As we do on most issues, including this one, we respectfully disagree. That's one of the things I love so much about Boundary County.

Based on my study of the language of Proposition 2, and on my experience regarding its potential application, I am polar in my point of view, as I am convinced this law will end up hurting the very people it says it will help, and benefit only those who have the means to take advantage of this law and only their own best interests in mind.

Proposition 2 will affect more people, more often and in more ways than anything else to be decided on this year's Idaho ballot, and is worthy of every voter's careful consideration.

I drew a modicum of fire from another local Proposition 2 proponent for a letter of mine published in this journal the week before last, in which I expressed my concerns. I signed that letter as county zoning administrator, not to give weight to my argument, but to let readers know my perspective. His argument was that I should not have signed as an "official" of county government, as in so doing I represented the county point of view and may have written it at taxpayer expense.

I would like it known that what I write here is not the official position of Boundary County nor the opinion of any official you've elected to serve you. It's my opinion only, written from my home, and shaped only by my experience and what I see in performing the work I have the privilege of doing. I only tell my job that readers might know what I do and weigh it in their consideration.

I would like to clarify, as zoning administrator, that Mr. Vickaryous did misstate the facts that led to the outcry of more than 400 citizens in September, 2005, and the passage of Emergency Ordinance 2006-1.

It was not home building that prompted the complaints; it was the uncontrolled division of land.

When the price of land in North Idaho boomed, investors discovered Boundary County, and one of the things that attracted them was our open attitude to land use planning.

What raised ire was not the construction of new houses, but the creation of lots upon which new owners thought they might be able to build … but on which some discovered they couldn't … no sewer, no water, poor roads. As the county, albeit tacitly, approved those "subdivisions," those new owners assumed such things had been considered, only to find out they weren't. In the majority of cases, neither were the effects those divisions of land would have on those who lived nearby.

Nothing against developers … the work they do is essential and needed. They know what their customers, our future neighbors, need, and they're in the business of providing it. Where our laws establish nothing but a minimum lot size requirement and a few ways to get around a public hearing, only the most dedicated developers are going to submit themselves to abuse from neighbors for obeying the laws we've established.

According to the majority of citizens who spent the last year working on the proposed Boundary County Comprehensive Plan, a few new rules are needed to make sure those who would subdivide land in Boundary County don't leave behind development that is going to take away rights or reduce services to those who are already here. It recognizes that there is a quality of life that is unique here, and worth protecting.

Under Idaho Code, county elected officials are required to ask the citizens they serve to define land use goals, to write a Comprehensive Plan, which then forms the basis for land use law.

For the past year, the citizens of Boundary County, including Mr. Vickaryous, have had that opportunity. Bob was heard and listened to, and his views were considered, but they didn't entirely prevail. Nor did the views of those at the other end of the spectrum, who insisted that more intense land use regulation was needed.

The end result, while still only a proposal subject to more revision, lands very much in the middle, and every effort has been made throughout the process to give everyone the opportunity to see and comment on the work to date. Instead of attempting to stifle comment, every differing point of view has been encouraged and heard.

The offer is only now reaching its most critical stage, and the time for participation is at its most critical point. On November 14, County Commissioners will hold a workshop to discuss all they've been presented thus far.

But first, there's Proposition 2, to be decided by Idaho voters November 7.

If passed, Proposition 2 will nullify the work of the past year, leaving in place the land use laws currently in effect.

If ordinances in effect at the time Proposition 2 is passed allow consideration, and your next door neighbor decides the best and highest use of his or her property is to develop a subdivision with one home to the acre, even though it's not served by a public road, the ground can't hold that many septic systems or water wells, and it sits beneath a hill that could slough off after a good rain and bury the homes proposed, he or she can sue the county, the taxpayer, for lost land value if the county were to disapprove that application.

And there's a flip side. If an Idaho city or county, trying to spare taxpayers the burden of such suit, approves the application in spite of the obvious or later overturns its decision so as to avoid suit, all surrounding property owners can then claim that action reduces their property value, giving them the same right to seek reimbursement for their loss in land value, again at taxpayer expense.

Because of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, cities and counties can't abandon land use planning entirely, but they can enact land use laws so open ended as to spare themselves the burden of having to render any land use decision at all, allowing anything anywhere and leaving it to neighbors to resolve resulting land use disputes in a court of law.

That would effectively nullify any claim that a city or county action resulted in a "taking" of property value, hence entitlement for reimbursement from the taxpayer's pocket.

While that wouldn't be the responsible approach, if Proposition 2 becomes law, it could be the only approach available to a city or county already struggling to provide basic governmental services to its citizens so as to avoid claims based not on a sensible, community-written land use plan that defines common values, but rather on the whim of every individual property owner as to what they can do to maximize the value of their particular piece of land, no matter what it might cost others.

By the time people realize things aren't quite what they expected, it's too late to turn back, and the damage progresses.

Mike Weland

Naples, Idaho