Posted on 10/03/2007 6:28:47 PM PDT by republicpictures
Four Flagstaff residents on Wednesday sued the city in what is regarded as a test case of enforcement of a sweeping property-rights law approved by Arizona voters last year.
The lawsuit claims that a special historical designation approved by the city diminished property values, in one case by preventing a resident from making a planned addition to the house he bought in 2006.
The other plaintiffs also live in the same neighborhood covered by the historical designation and claimed similar damages because of rules imposing height limits and other construction restrictions.
The lawsuit, filed in Coconino County Superior Court in Flagstaff on behalf of the Flagstaff residents by the Sacramento, Calif.-based Pacific Legal Foundation, is said to be the first filed in connection with Proposition 207. The four residents are Jon Regner, Paul Turner, Bob Richards and Margaret Allen. Richards and Allen are married.
Along with imposing new restraints on use of eminent domain, Proposition 207 mandates that state and local governments generally provide compensation for people whose property lost value due to government action.
"If the government takes away your property rights, it should compensate you for that taking," said Timothy Sandefur, a Pacific Legal attorney. "Unfortunately the city of Flagstaff doesn't think it's necessary to comply with state law."
City Attorney Patricia J. Boomsma said the city contends that property values go up, not down, because of the historical designation.
"That is one of the benefits for those who live in the district, also to preserve historical heritage," she said.
Deciding whether the designations increase or decrease property values will be key outcome statewide for the case, said Ken Strobeck, executive director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns.
Because of the possibility of litigation due to passage of Proposition 207, there's been a "chilling effect" in most cities regarding designations of new historical districts, Strobeck said.
"Everybody has kind of backed off except for Flagstaff so we've been watching that pretty carefully," Strobeck said. "It will help all the rest of the cities to know where the boundaries are."
Boomsma also said she was unaware of any other litigation involving Proposition 207.
"I know there's a lot of people who are watching this lawsuit," she said.
---
On the Net:
Pacific Legal Foundation: http://www.pacificlegal.org
City of Flagstaff: http://www.flagstaff.az.gov
property rights ping
Awesome!
Thanks for the ping!
Property rights are under attack everywhere in the country. Government agencies basically dare you to take them on because they know that most Americans do not have the resources to fight well funded government agencies. If lawsuits could include personal penalties for lawmakers who violate our Constitutional rights, we might see more chellanges and fewer instances of taking.
Property values go up because of the people in the community not because of its designation. I know of many historic homes in broken (by the Great Society War on Poverty) black neighborhoods that are not worth much.
This will be one to keep an eye on..
I haven’t done any specific analysis, but I would guess that all property values go down the more restrictions are placed on the use of the subject property, including expansion.
Perhaps Ms. Boomsma is talking about some historic commercial areas where they also pour in a ton of economic development funds to revitalize the district, but that value increase would come from the added investment not from the historic designation alone.
Eminent Domain is a frightening possibility to most homeowners.
The Government seems to get what it wants.
I paid my property taxes last year (on time) and got another bill in the mail for $25 more. No reason included in the bill. Rather than fight city hall - I paid it.
Makes one wonder - $25 from every property owner in a county adds up to quite a big sum.
This is what happens when government entities grow too large, too powerful, too well-funded, and have nothing productive to do.
We need a nationwide organization, similar to the National Rifle Association, which will fight for private property rights in all 50 states.
Designating certain neighborhoods historical sites against the wishes of the residents of that neighborhood is a lot like designating wilderness areas. It is usually done at the instigation of persons who want to enjoy the sights of the historical/wilderness area and then go home to their own unrestricted homes.
I spent a few years of my childhood near an area that the almighty Kennedy family worked to designate wilderness (in Idaho) and it put an end to any significant development. Fifty years later I returned to the area and not much has happened.
Git Outta “MY” Yard !!!...:0(GRRRRRRR!!!:0(
PLF is a very good start.
Exactly. Let the market decide the value, based on the choices and actions of individuals in the community, not restrictions enacted by government.
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.