[Carry_Okie]

But the new proposal heading for the ballot here would also require the government to compensate property owners for what are known as "regulatory takings" - actions that reduce the value of property without forcing its sale, typically associated with regulations designed to protect the environment.

This may sound strange coming from me, but this could be a poison pill. I would prefer to enshrine homeowner protection before going after regulatory takings because the latter are too often the province of the Federill grubbamint (however illegitimately so). Win one battle at a time; else lose in Federal court and have nothing to show for the effort.

[calcowgirl]

I agree with you. McClintock was even getting the Democrats on board.
Hopefully this won't kill the whole thing.

[Lancey Howard]

Win one battle at a time; else lose in Federal court and have nothing to show for the effort.

I agree that the Ninth Circus would do whatever their liberal Democrat masters told them to do, but I believe that the Roberts Court would ultimately support the passing of such an initiative.

[Amerigomag]

I would prefer to enshrine homeowner protection before going after regulatory takings

There is an inherent weakness in monetary penalties as a deterrent to government, regulatory takings. The supply of money is endless. Both to pay for the taking and to finance an aggressive legal defense of the taking.

There is also the scepter of insider trading if compensation for regulatory taking becomes common law. Properties¹, included in unpublished, future takings, will be acquired by those in the know and properties², without significance, will be the subject of trivial takings simply to enhance connected owners from the public trough.

1 - For example: Property already excluded from development by local regs in a proposed conservancy.
2 - For example: Property contiguous to a new transportation corridor in Orange County being subject to state imposed migratory flyway protections of caribou migration protections.