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.
- Thomas Arvensis on Analyst: FBI let Malheur militants save face to end occupation
- Robert Parker on Sagebrush Insurgency connections
- Wayne L Hare on The rise of the Sagebrush Sheriffs
- Robert Jordan on New leader steps up for the American Lands Council
- Carrie Casagram on The rise of the Sagebrush Sheriffs