TWIN FALLS — As Idaho grows, its local planning and zoning boards see their workloads increase.

That could change on Election Day — but exactly how remains the debate.

A voter initiative has those involved fighting over the role of government as its supporters say it restores property rights while opponents argue it can destroy local government.

“There is a gap there in sort of public understanding of the long term and broad effects it could have on a community,” said Bill Jaeger, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at Oregon State University.

Proposition 2, expected to be discussed at both a legislative forum in Twin Falls on Tuesday and a local officials meeting in Hansen on Wednesday, has been debated since Oregon passed a similar law in 2004. Politicians have spoken out against Prop 2, including gubernatorial candidates Democrat Jerry Brady and Republican U.S. Rep. C.L. “Butch” Otter.

Beyond ‘Eminent Domain’

Those pushing for the initiative say it restores eminent domain rights violated by the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London. Eminent domain in the United States concerns how governments could use private property if/ when trying to obtain land for public projects.

According to its supporters, Prop 2 allows property owners to seek financial compensation from the government if (the government) denies development. For example, if a resident wants to build four buildings, but is told by the local government he is only allowed two buildings, he can sue the government for whatever loss that decision will cost him.

Laird Maxwell, spokesman for the property-rights group This House is MY Home, said detractors are within government n the people who hold too much control.

“It’s a citizen’s initiative, not a politician’s initiative and the politicians are worried that their power will be taken away,” Maxwell said.

Such opponents, however, argue the law will either bankrupt governments by paying the property owners or — in order to avoid such lawsuits — waive regulations to control growth or the environment.

“They’re setting up a law that would provide due process for people who wanted to do whatever they want to do,” Twin Falls Mayor Lance Clow said. “People think it’s for protecting your neighbor, but it’s your neighbor that you have to watch out for.”

The initiative, some experts said, has little to do with eminent domain. John D. Echeverria, executive director of Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., called Prop 2 “a sham” and said potential benefactors — miners and agriculture workers — are exempted.

“It will be effective in imposing massive new costs on taxpayers in Idaho, reduced public services, and make it difficult or impossible to enforce zoning rules that control growth,” Echeverria said. “It would basically make it impossible to enforce government.”

Potential for Problems?

Although academics studying the effects of the Oregon measure say it is too soon to assess its effects, Maxwell called it an “overwhelming success.”

One obvious effect is an increase in claims and there are 90 cases pending that were filed alleging violations of property rights, said Marvin Brown of the Oregon Department of Forestry.

“The big thing that has been negative is the law has allowed a lot of vagueness to it,” he said. “It’s not cheap hiring lawyers for 90 cases.”

The law will hurt Oregon because it creates uncertainty over regulation — estimating how land-use regulation affects property values is not always consistent between individuals and communities, Jaeger said.

“A lot of what land-use regulation is is predictability and controlling land-use or noise factors,” said Jaeger, who is researching the measure’s impact. “You’re going to have a point where land values have gone up and then you get a bunch of claims and they go down.”

He said thousands of claims have already altered land-use regulations and acknowledged environmental problems develop.

“The more waivers you give the more you’re going to undo the protections of the environment and others that were the basis for the regulations to begin with,” he said.

Maxwell, however, insisted that the Idaho initiative forbids potentially hazardous claims and that pollution controls are included in the exemptions for land-use claims.

Potential effects on the environment in Idaho are not clear but they are unlikely to be “blatant and obvious,” in Idaho said John Freemuth, a public policy professor at Boise State University.

Hitting Home

The debate over land-use regulation, which has sparked similar ballot initiatives in Washington, California and Arizona, became national following Oregon. Efforts have generated support from out-of-state contributors, including Howard Rich, a wealthy Libertarian activist from New York City. Such involvement, as well as allegations of fraud over petition signatures in other states, however, has led some to question motives for land-use regulation.

“A lot of people think it’s opportunities n I just think it’s an ideological group that wants absolutely no government control,” Clow said.

In northwest Twin Falls, residents have complained over plans for a Wal-Mart and a new hospital, but homeowners could not demand financial compensation if such commercial entities drive down their property values, experts said.

“This measure is not designed to protect homeowners and other property owners,” Echeverria said. “It’s simply designed to expand the rights of developers.”

Not all local developers, however, said it is necessary.

“I’m not really enamored with it,” said Douglas Vollmer, whose company is responsible for nearly a dozen properties in Twin Falls. “The legislature has done a pretty good job of protecting our rights.”

Still, Maxwell contends that residents in Twin Falls deserve an opportunity to develop their land like any other American.

“[Opponents] are generally politicians and people that deal with the government that want the ability to further their goals by having the ability to regulate someone’s property, diminish its value, and not pay for it,” he said. “That includes the Magic Valley.”

Jared S. Hopkins covers city and county government. He can be reached at (208) 735-3204 or jhopkins@magicvalley.com.