Comments on: Prop 2 Advocates Threaten Broadcasters

By: The old guy

The old guy — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 02:52:30 +0000

It seems to me that what Prop 2 really aims to do is eliminate zoning and return to the “free for all” approach for building whatever and whereever you jolly well please, I hope it goes down in non-spreading flames.

By: CYCLOPS

CYCLOPS — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:33:38 +0000

It seems to me like we are miising the point. If we had a decent Planning and Zoning process that made just a little bit of sense with regard to what was best for the community, we wouldn’t even consider this type of proposition. These types of actions appear to be born out of a frustration with the lack of logic and common sense from our planning departments. There is no question, in my mind, that this is a bad proposition that is being sold by special interests. However, it’s defeat won’t solve the problem.

By: Razzbar

Razzbar — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:28:08 +0000

I’m not against eminent domain. I’m just against the abuse of it such as the Supreme Court upheld last spring, where people were kicked out of their homes so that some Babylonian could build a whore house. The “public good” as required by the constitution was that the city could dig more tax revenue from the development.

Recall that within days of that descision, the Idaho legislature passed a law restricting such abuse.

I’m just wondering if that law passes, I can get some money from the government for not being allowed to grow opium poppies on my land.

Yes, I know about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would allow me to do so if it was part of my religion.

Was it Lenin or Marx that said that religion was the opium of the masses? Do the Catholics serve opium at mass?

By: osprey

osprey — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:52:02 +0000

I looked at the Voters Guide from the Secretary of State’s office and the argument for Prop. 2 and what is interesting is the proponents make no case for the initiative based on Idaho-specific facts and examples where takings have occurred in this state and how widespread a problem it is. There is passing reference to a developer in Blaine County who had some property “downzoned,” whatever that means, but no facts about what was proposed by the developer that was denied by the County Commission and why the denial was a taking.

I hardly think state law should be changed based on one anecdote from People’s Republic of Blaine County. If there are “takings” going on out there the evidence would appear to show the economy is not being hurt, nor the economic growth in this valley. I think this is a case of an ideology driven agenda v. a problem solving initiative. And there’s no Idaho-specific factual case being made to support it so I vote no.

By: Snoop

Snoop — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 03:38:17 +0000

If you look at the only other state that has passed a similar proposition look no further than Oregon. They passed one eerily similar to this one and now have billions of dollars in lawsuits because of it. Prop 2 uses words like eminent domain to scare people into voting for it. We all are against eminent domain in one way or another, but what Prop 2 does is take away what planning and zoning has set in place for where certain types of property should and shouldn’t go. Prop 2 only takes all of that away. The ads use extremes like pig farm or high rise to get a rise out of people, but this proposition leaves the door wide open to any type of business not fit to be next to your home. The only way to in turn stop it would be to file a lawsuit, which is right where Oregon is now.

We also need to look at who is driving this proposition and what their true intentions are. Hopefully we are not the next state to go down that path. Anyone with half a brain will vote no on Prop 2.

By: Razzbar

Razzbar — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:36:03 +0000

False and misleading claims in a political ad?

Surely, this must be a first!

I’m just kinda puzzled at how this is illegal. I know that media were protected by state law against slander and libel when they quote someone. Aren’t political ads also covered by this law?

And just what exactly are these allegedly false and misleading claims?

By: bikeboy

bikeboy — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:33:12 +0000

“Prop. 2 is a solution in search of a problem…”

That may be the most accurate assessment. I’m all in favor of protecting property owners from eminent-domain -type actions for the sake of increasing tax revenue, as happened back in New England (the famous Supreme Court case)… but didn’t the Legislature already strengthen the property owner’s hand? (And Gub’nor Dirk ultimately signed the bill, over objections by various bureaucracies and such.)

Maybe we need to watchdog for a couple years, and see if there are cases where more property rights protection is needed. (It’s not like 2006 will be the only chance to decide. And besides, the Legislature has a well-documented history of overriding voter initiatives, so what’s the point? Big Brother will take care of ALL of us!)

By: Wonk Vader

Wonk Vader — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:28:38 +0000

It blows my mind that Laird Maxwell, who admitted to political dirty tricks during the 2003 Mayoral campaign, is complaining about anti-Prop. 2 ads. At least Prop. 2 opponents identified themselves in the ads, which is something Maxwell has a hard time doing. Whenever there is an issue Maxwell supports, you will find chambers of commerce, neighborhood residents, local governments and other community-minded person against it. He’s out of the mainstream and just a Republican In Name Only.

Ada County has grown by 50 percent in the past 10 years. It would be difficult to argue the government preventing people from using their land.

Prop. 2 is a solution in search of a problem, financed by wealthy out-of-state extremists using Maxwell as their local tool, and I encourage everyone to vote against it.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:07:42 +0000

Proponents say it will protect your property. Opponents ask would you want a pig farm or junk yard next door?

So, I’ve been trying to think — would I rather have a pig farm or junkyard under that proposal, or a hundred huge homes crammed together with all the attendant vehicles, people, etc., as under our current method?

Damn, that’s a hard one. Guess I’ll flip a coin on the way to the polls.

By: Andy (not that one)

Andy (not that one) — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:40:44 +0000

“It could turn any Idaho property including farm land into junk yards, power plants or high rises.”

My understanding is that’s true, providing that neighbors file a suit to stop the development and lose.

That said, any bill containing intentionally confusing language such as this one deserves to die an ugly death.