Posted on 01/23/2006 5:17:03 AM PST by nh1
Local rules are the big threat to private property in NH
By JIM DANNIS YOUR TURN, NH 8 hours, 2 minutes ago
THE LEGISLATURE is working hard to limit the use of eminent domain for private development. Thankfully, that hasn't happened much in New Hampshire. But there is a much more serious and common risk for New Hampshire property owners — zoning and land use rules taking away property values.
Here's how it works. You wake up one morning in March, just after town meeting, and find that your seven acre field can no longer be subdivided because of a new zoning change. All those folks who moved into the big new developments in town like the look of your field when they drive by. These people (and there are a lot of them) made some noise at the planning board and the board, with the help of some statewide conservation organizations, drafted a new regulation setting a minimum lot size of five acres for "agricultural land."
The stated reason for the new rule is to preserve the town's agricultural heritage (even though there is not a single working farm left in town) and the town's "rural feel." The real purpose also is to stop growth. The newcomers who doubled the size of the town in the last 20 years really like the few little bits of remaining countryside, like your field.
You had been counting on getting three house lots out of the field ($100,000 apiece) to help pay for retirement and the kids' education. But with the new zoning change, the $300,000 you counted as "in the bank" has just shrunk to $150,000 (a single oversized lot). Overnight you've lost half the value of your land because the majority of the voters in town want to preserve it for themselves, and nobody is offering to pay you anything.
You think to yourself, this is New Hampshire, I've owned this land for 40 years. If they want to take away half the value of my land, don't they have to pay me fair compensation? You call up your old pal the country lawyer and ask, "How far can the town go in setting new land use restrictions that take away the value of my property?" Her answer is shocking. Under New Hampshire Supreme Court precedents, as long as a zoning change does not "substantially destroy" the value of your property (that is, leave you with nothing of any material value), you are out of luck. You tell your daughter "good-bye Harvard, hello Plymouth State," and you tell your wife you'll both still be working at age 75.
New Hampshire's new elite of planners, conservation organizations and their supporters have many clever ways to stop growth and preserve your land for their benefit, even though the result is to take away your fundamental property rights. For example, the town of Lyme established a 50-acre minimum lot size for a large segment of town the planners designated as a "mountain and forest conservation district." This zoning change stopped growth and preserved the views for the people who look at the forest land, but it took away (with no compensation) the forest owners' chances of realizing any development value for the land. Hanover did the same thing, and went a step further by ruling that the owner of the minimum 50-acre lot in the "forest and recreation" zone can't even build a year-round house (only camps and seasonal dwellings are allowed).
These kinds of confiscatory zoning changes have the exact same effect as if the town used eminent domain to "take" a perpetual conservation easement from landowners. The hugely unfair difference, though, is that by using zoning the towns avoid the obligation to pay landowners fair compensation for their losses.
If the Legislature wants to protect private property rights, these kinds of zoning changes need a new legislative overlay. First, zoning changes that take away economic value from property owners should be subject to "strict scrutiny" by the courts, rather than the current presumption that they are valid. The pendulum has swung too far and it has become far too easy for towns to adopt zoning changes that ruin property value.
Second, New Hampshire should follow the lead of Oregon and establish that zoning changes and land use decisions that impair property value will require payment of just compensation to landowners.
Taking these steps will protect property owners from unjust takings by their own local governments. It's the right thing to do.
Jim Dannis is a member of the Dalton Master Planning Committee.
Opinions expressed in this weekly column aren't necessarily those of the Union Leader. All readers are welcome to submit essays of up to 750 words for the editor's consideration. Please include a word or two about yourself, along with name, address, phone number and, if possible, a photograph. Mail to: Your Turn, c/o New Hampshire Union Leader, P.O. Box 9555, Manchester, NH 03108, or by e-mail to opinion@unionleader.com. All submissions become property of the Union Leader and can't be returned.
Zoning laws: welfare for the well connected.
An ominous thought for Monday morning; "Just because you're not interested in politics, doesn't mean that politics is uninterested in you." - Solon or Alcibiades or someone else.
Aren't property taxes in general a threat to private property?
No, not really. It is more "control by the "self-anointed"", who "have a vision" for the way THEY want things to be. Most of the folks pushing this kind of stuff are NOT wealthy---they are "quiet socialists" or "Green-weenies" (which, of course, is just a socialist of a different color).
Should have a 'grandfather clause' somewhere, imo, where new owners go by the new rules, and old owners go by the old ones. Then, if they wanted to preserve the 'feel', they could meet his asking price, or he would have the option to subdivide and develop or sell.
That would be too reasonable.
LOL! But every time a liberal wants to take something else from me, they start in with "Be reasonable..."
Lots of business people got that way, in part, by restricting competition.
They spend a lot of time making political connections and will fund activists if it suits their business interests, or reduces recreational costs.
I'm sympathetic to the sentiments of this article, but am bearing in mind that zoning laws are very often put in place specifically to save property values.
For instance, subdividing farmland into a trailer park or other low cost development may be a money maker for a particular landowner, but will not necessarily be helpful for the property values of his neighbor farmers; it could very well do damage. Folk need to keep in mind that what they do with their land will probably have an impact, one way or the other, on the value and use of the property of others.
Better to keep the government out of real estate welfare for special interests.
If people want private land used a certain way, they can buy it.
It happened in Maryland, where a few of my family live on a fragment of a land grant from the 1600s, I moved west because there are too many people and too many rules. The change only took one generation.
Ironically, some of the first rules were demanded by some of the original owners in an attempt to keep the area rural. It backfired. The rules, once in place are subject to the influence of deep pockets and swarms of new voters. Best to keep government out of it entirely.
If the guy in the example wanted to start a pig farm, I wonder how the neighbors would react to that 'rural feel'?
So, this gives those "others" the right to tell the land-owner what he or she can or cannot do with his or her property?? My--that's a nice little socialist/communist idea, isn't it.
Sorry, not buying it.
The farmers could buy the land of the park developer.
Or use government force to steal value from the developer. The latter seems cheaper to many people, hence its popularity.
Yes!
Like I said, I have sympathy for the sentiments in the article. But when someone does something that will lower the value or change the character of the property of someone else, you can bet that the someone else is not going to sit by idly.
Theoretically at least though, my inclination is to agree with you - the idea of protecting a common good has generally been an excuse for more and more government power. I have mixed feelings about the practicality.
Large masses of far-Left Boomer liberals moving to NH, VT, and ME from the Boston/Metrowest region are significantly altering the political perspective in those states. It's been going on for years, and is now being felt by local people who have lived in those states all their lives.
After reflecting on your posts, I find that I was probably wrong - in other words, I agree with you guys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.