<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=messenger@supporting933.org
href="mailto:messenger@supporting933.org">Supporting I-933 Messenger</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=message@supporting933.org
href="mailto:message@supporting933.org">message@supporting933.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 25, 2006 12:14 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> I-933 definition of privatre property</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV align=center><FONT color=#990000><FONT
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><SMALL><B>This message is one of a series
about the Property Fairness Initiative to address concerns raised by the
initiative's opponents. We hope that you find this information
useful.<BR><BR>If you find this helps you understand I-933 better, please feel
free to share it with your friends and neighbors.
</B></SMALL></FONT></FONT><BR></DIV><BR>
<HR width="100%" SIZE=2>
<FONT face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">One of the points of argument used by
those who oppose the Property Fairness initiative is that it doesn't just apply
to real property (land and buildings). For example, they contend that it
includes a neighbor's Harley or four-wheeler, and that all kinds of problems
could result from how people who own such things want them to sound.<BR><BR>We
think that such assumptions go well beyond what I-933 is talking about when it
defines private property. Quoting from the <A
href="http://www.propertyfairness.com/files/I933.pdf">text of the
initiative</A>:<BR></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">"Private property"
includes all real and personal property interests protected by the fifth
amendment to the United States Constitution or article 1, section 16 of the
state Constitution owned by a nongovernmental entity, including, but not
limited to, any interest in land, buildings, crops, livestock, and mineral and
water rights.</FONT><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">When opponents discuss their point of view,
they talk about the initiative going beyond real property, but they fail to
mention that the definition limits this to just property interests protected
under the constitutions. The value of such things as stocks and bonds
don't have a constitutional protection, nor do you have a constitutional
property right to have an unmufflered car running in your back
yard.<BR><BR>According to the <A
href="http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Environment/PB_MyersInitiative933.htm">Washington
Policy Center's evaluation of Initiative 933</A>:<BR></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE>One of the areas of I-933 that has drawn particular attention is
its definition of “private property.” The definition includes the “interest in
the land” as well as “mineral and water rights.” These are not unusual, as
they address the land and the rights to use that land associated with zoning
and other permitted activities. However, the definition also includes, but is
not limited to, “buildings, crops, livestock.” Other equipment has also been
mentioned in public, although they are not specifically called out in the
initiative. The impact of this is twofold.<BR><BR>First, it is to address not
only the value of the property itself, but also of the products of that land.
For instance, if regulation determined that timber could not be harvested on a
particular piece of land, the compensation would have to cover not only the
diminished value of the land but also the lost value of the standing timber
which the owner is not allowed to harvest.<BR><BR>Second, it is intended to
close an anticipated avenue of alternative regulation that could be used to
offset government’s ability to avoid paying the cost of restrictions. A
jurisdiction could decide to allow a parcel to be used for grazing but
prohibit cows from being on the property. Without the addition of “real and
personal property,”regulators could argue that they had not actually changed
the rights associated with the land but simply altered the way those rights
could be used, thereby avoiding compensation.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">When a compensation case reaches a court, we
can anticipate that the judge will conclude that the legislative intent of I-933
in regard to more than real property alone is limited along the lines noted by
the Washington Policy Center. Far from opening the Pandora's box of
horrors envisioned by the initiative's opponents, the inclusion of more than the
real property alone is then limited to property employed in the productive use
of the land itself.<BR><BR>When you sit down and think about it, the additional
provision for personal property interests protected by our constitutions makes a
lot of sense, is well thought out, and is very fair to the property
owner.<BR></FONT>
<HR width="100%" SIZE=2>
<DIV align=center><FONT face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><BIG><FONT
color=#990000>Please join us in voting <B>YES</B> for
I-933<BR><BR><SMALL><SMALL><FONT color=#000000>If you wish to be removed from
this email list, please send your request to <A
href="mailto:messenger@supporting933.org">messenger@supporting933.org</A>.<BR><BR></FONT></SMALL></SMALL><BR><SMALL><SMALL><SMALL><SMALL><SMALL><FONT
color=#000000>Paid for by North Olympic Counties Farm
Bureau</FONT></SMALL></SMALL></SMALL></SMALL></SMALL><BR></FONT></BIG></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>