The following guest editorial ran in the Idaho Falls newspaper on October 28, 2006. It was written by Halli Stone in response to a previous guest opinion by Bonneville County Planning and Zoning Board chairman, Kathy Stanger.

I’m astonished to read Kathy Stanger’s confessions. I think she revealed more than she intended.

Stanger admitted she’s never read Proposition 2, yet condemned it outright. As “chair of the Bonneville County Planning and Zoning Commission”, she didn’t bother to find out the facts of legislation particularly pertinent to that position of public trust. The Prop. 2 petition she signed and should’ve read, was clearly titled “Initiative limiting eminent domain when used for economic development; defining land use law; and permitting just compensation for regulatory takings.”

Was it turf protection that caused Stanger to be so careless? Organized efforts to defeat Proposition 2 are traceable to the Idaho Association of Cities and Association of Idaho Counties. They’ve spread blatant lies about Prop. 2’s effects on property rights. And they’ve done it with the help of your tax dollars, paid them in dues by Idaho cities and counties. What do Idaho cities and counties (and hence their planning and zoning boards) stand to lose if Prop 2 wins? Power – over your private property.

The facts? Proposition 2’s about stopping government from taking your private property to give to other private entities.

Prop. 2 also prevents government from changing rules for using private property that cause a loss in value, unless they pay for what they take.

The Legislature passed HB555 this spring, fixing part of the eminent-domain-for-economic-gain problem from the 2005 Kelo decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. But the Legislature left loopholes. Under intense lobbying, legislators refused to let additional corrective bills be heard.

HB555 didn’t resolve the meanings of legal phrases in statutes that frequently cause problems for property owners when courts interpret them. Proposition 2 defines those problem phrases to protect private citizens.

When government changes land use rules after you purchase property, there may be a loss of value. That’s a regulatory taking. Should government compensate you when it lowers your property value? YES, it should.

As for Stanger’s “gas station next door” example, surely someone with her experience would have checked the zoning before purchasing the property, and would have known if a gas station were allowed. Prop. 2 doesn’t change zoning already in place. Stanger can breathe easier now.

Fair-minded people understand there’s a reason for Stanger’s hysteria over protecting property rights. Proposition 2 is a citizens’ initiative, not a politician’s initiative. Prop. 2 limits the power of politicians and bureaucrats like Stanger, returning power to property owners.

Don’t let government and its representatives fool you with their lies. Learn the facts for yourself – read Prop. 2 at the Idaho Secretary of State webpage or ThisHouseIsMYHome.com.

Proposition 2 protects your property rights, and your property value.