Generally, most people believe that, as a matter of "fairness," people should be compensated if they lose some value to their property. I would not want the state to condemn my house for a new highway, and not pay me what it is worth. But if you asked most of these voters if they would like to see all zoning eliminated, and gave them a few examples of the consequences, such as the sprawl eating up the lowlands around nearby Seattle, Wash., I know most voters would be against such lack of restrictions.
Back in the early 1990s, voters in Oregon passed Measure 5, which reduced property taxes. Who wouldn’t say, "Yes, I want to pay less property taxes"? However, that measure has led to a huge decline in many public services. If Measure 5 had said, "Would you be willing to live with less government services, crowded schools, closed state parks, etc. etc. etc., in exchange for a slight reduction in property taxes," I don’t think it would have passed.
These measures were Trojan Horses, designed to hide their real intent.
- Latest: California fracking companies inject protected aquifers with wastewater
- American Indian students in Utah face harsh discipline
- The taxpayer money that fuels federal land transfer demands
- Obama's preemptive strike to reform Endangered Species Act
- Wyoming trespass law is the latest in grazing battle
- Bette Korber on The Los Angeles wetland wars
- Garrett Allen on The view from 31,000 feet: A philosopher looks at fracking
- Robb Cadwell on The view from 31,000 feet: A philosopher looks at fracking
- Amy & Chris Gulick on The view from 31,000 feet: A philosopher looks at fracking
- Richard H Ernst on The taxpayer money that fuels federal land transfer demands