'Revisions' will have an impact on us all
Attention: all property owners, brokers, architects, engineers,contractors, developers and anyone else interested in fairness and equitable treatment. I recently sat in on a county technical committee meeting of those who are charged with deciphering the confusing, voluminous, ambiguous and outright contradictory second set of proposed revisions to our land use code. Those "revisions" have cost us all approximately $400,000 and counting, paid to Kendigkeast Co., the draftsmen, an out-of-state firm. Guess no in-state firm could handle it.
To get a feel of the proposed ULUC revisions, look no farther than Article 5-1-1 Findings and Purpose. The anti growth, anti development orientation of the drafters is clear... "By unit of land area, construction is a disproportionate contributor of sediments to surface water." This is patently untrue, it has been well-demonstrated that the most significant contributor to lake and stream pollution is the runoff from the use of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers used in farming. For more on this issue simply Google up http://cdalakeassn.com/ and read their well-researched position paper on and criticism of the proposed revisions to the ULUC.
Most telling, at the official county website addressing/endorsing the proposed land use revisions, two old Supreme Court decisions, dating from 1922 are cited to support the county's authority for a "regulatory taking" of our property without compensation. The most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and current law on this topic is Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council(1992). This Supreme Court decision clearly bars the regulatory taking of property or regulatorily limiting its use or substantially diminishing its value. Curious indeed that the county website omits mention of this single most recent and controlling U.S. Supreme Court decision in this area! Guess they don't want you to know.
To back up Lucas we have Idaho Code, Title 67,Chapter 65(a), which requires "An analysis of provisions ... necessary to ensure that land use policies, restrictions, conditions and fees do not violate the private property rights, adversely impact property values or create unnecessary technical limitations on the use of property."
I and my neighbors on Hayden Lake have sloping waterfront unbuilt lots, in a 20-year-old county approved subdivision which is 80 percent built out. Several years ago we applied for approval and paid a fee to the county to put in our septic fields, at no small expense.
The newly re-revised proposed code will, due to new 75 feet set back requirements and new complicated slope restrictions, as well as other additional new revisions (restrictions), make our lots, (even with proper site engineering which would actually serve to reduce runoff substantially below the lots natural state), unbuildable, a classic Lucas taking. This will result in a complete regulatory taking by the county and force us to incur the cost of suing the county, which also will result in added taxpayer expense for the county's defense. There is some misleading use of footnotes in the new re-revision to obscure the fact that these proposed restrictions will still apply to our properties.
Bigger question is, with Kootenai County unemployment rates at 9.5 percent and unemployment in construction, a past primary driver of our economy at 20 percent-plus, can we afford these anti-growth attempts to regulate away our property rights and diminish our land values? Be aware, these "revisions" will have definite negative impact on not just riparian owners, but on all land use as well as already developed property throughout the county.
William Spring is a resident of Hayden Lake.