Proposition 207 (Arizona) Private Property

¶ … Proposition 207 (Arizona) Private Property Rights Protection Act. The writer explores its elements and the advantages and disadvantages of its passage. There were five sources used to complete this paper.

Up until a few decades ago eminent domain did not have a significant impact on the American public. On the rare occasion that someone's land was needed for the good of a larger group, it was taken, the owner was paid handsomely for it and the world moved on. In recent years however, as the nation becomes more crowded and space is at a premium to be found, the issue of eminent domain has become a more significant problem for American society. In addition to eminent domain laws there have been recent outcries from land owners when new governmental regulations have driven the value of their land downward simply because of the regulation adoption. Arizona recently passed Proposition 207, a proposition designed to protect the rights of land owners against the government. While the passage of this proposition is going to create some hardships for local government entities to comply with as they attempt to build and grow their areas, the proposition did exactly what it was meant to do and that is protect landowners. Government bodies will simply have to come up with other ways to get done what they want to do.

WHAT IT IS The passage of Proposition 207 in Arizona was a majority cry from landowners for protection from the government's interference in their land and its value. The proposition has two primary elements. The first element of significance in the proposition has to do with eminent domain (Meltzer, 2006). Eminent domain laws were enacted to provide the government with the power to forcibly take someone's land from them if it can be shown that the action will benefit the greater good. For many years this only applied to the need for highways, school land, public access roads and other things that the government needed to be able to operate the local area smoothly. In recent years however, governments have been taking land from landowners for private business interests and claiming it is for the greater good. One example is the use of eminent domain laws to take land to sell to a mall developer or a subdivision developer (Meltzer, 2006). The governments rationalize that the greater good will be achieved because of the taxes from the retail shops that will be gained or the property value increases from the subdivision properties as well as the property taxes that will be paid (Meltzer, 2006).

While opponents of the proposition claimed it was deceptively packaged, those who support its passage believe it will force the government to be sure there are no other alternatives before it decides to take someone's land by force.

It looks like a lovable teddy bear, and it will turn around and bite everyone, including the taxpayers," said Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry. Backers of the initiative point to several eminent-domain cases in Maricopa County, including a Mesa brake-shop owner who went to court to prevent the city from taking his property for a hardware store. Arizona case law says governments cannot take property to give to another property owner unless the area is blighted. However, that leaves governments free to declare entire districts blighted and use that designation to condemn properties that are in good condition (Meltzer, 2006). "

The proposition provides many stopgap measures along the way to eminent domain under the guise of blighted land so that it can be sold to developers. The first thing it does is require that the land be examined on a case by case basis, not an entire area. Before the proposition was passed the government could look at an area that contained several pieces of individually owned lands and if it found one area or piece of land that could be declared blighted then it was within its rights to move in and take over the entire area that it had its eye on. All the government had to do was make the area large enough to find a piece of blighted land (Meltzer, 2006). Now the proposition reduces that ability. The land must be looked at parcel by parcel and if an individual parcel is not blighted the government has no right to exercise eminent domain over it.

The second element of land use and government action that Proposition 207 deals with is the area of regulations. In the past, if the government suddenly decided to declare a certain bird or tree or flower as protected, and that flower appeared on someone's land, that person was prohibited from the development of the land that the protected element was located on. What this means is before the passage of 207 if the government suddenly decided that a rose was protected, and land had natural roses growing on it the land could not be sold or developed as the owners would be government ordered to set aside that land as a natural preserve.

The change that proposition 207 brought was that if a government action reduces the value of one's land then the government must pay the landowner for causing that to happen.

Another example of this is when a person owns a large piece of land and that land is currently zoned to allow 20 houses to be built on it. If the government decides that it does not want that dense of a population in the area, due to current traffic congestion or any other reason, then the government might decide to change the zoning to only allow three houses to be placed on that land. If this happens since the passage of 207, the government must now pay the landowner for the inconvenience and aggravation of changing the value of the land through regulation adoption.

David Baird, a retired Air Force officer who moved to Pima County Arizona "in 1972, said he's a strong supporter of property rights, but he supported the change and doesn't think property owners should be compensated for not being able to put more houses on their lots (Meltzer, 2006)."

THE CONS

The voters spoke in a collective voice a few weeks ago when they passed the proposition however, there are people who were opposed to its passage and are now concerned about the ramifications of its existence (Plans, 2006).

They believe it is going to tie the hands of officials when it comes to making sound land use decisions in the growth of the areas that govern. One example was a landowner who wanted to build mini dorm style apartments on his land. This would increase traffic, noise and other problems that the area was already suffering from. Several neighborhood meetings were held to try and stop the allowance of such land use but just as the local government was set to vote to change the density provisions for that area, Proposition 207 passed. This now means the local government and taxpayers either have to allow the mini dorms to be constructed or pay the land owner a significant amount of money because of the reduced per dwelling value his property will have if the government moves forward with the zoning changes.