The most significant ballot initiatives are the so-called property rights initiatives, which are on the ballot in Washington, California, Idaho and Arizona. If I had it my way, I would add a subtitle to these initiatives: the pro-sprawl measure. The premise of these initiatives is that the government should either compensate property owners for changes in land use regulations that diminish the value of the owners’ property, or waive the restrictions entirely. The best example of this scenario is a farm that has been owned for generations by a single family. At some point during the life of the farm, the local government decides to pass restrictions on potential uses of that land, including the building of personal residences. Such regulations eliminate the possibility that the farmer can cash in and sell the property to a developer with plans to build a subdivision. From the farmer’s perspective, the government has just taken money from his or her pocket, and compensation is required. As always, the issue is not so simple.

Such a measure passed in Oregon, of all places, in 2004, and has the potential to gut decades of work by local governments to stem the unmitigated growth of suburbs. This recent report by Sightline Institute highlights the pitfalls of such an approach to adjudicating disputes between landowners and local governments. The first conclusion of this report is that it’s not clear who deserves to be compensated and for what amount. Property rights advocates conveniently ignore the untidy reality that one person’s actions affect many others. So when Farmer Joe sells his land to a developer, who compensates his neighbors for the impact of new houses on their businesses? Who compensates the broader community for increases in congestion and pollution? Local government can certainly abuse the powers to regulate land use, but most entities use these powers to foster more manageable growth and maintain the quality of life for all residents. This role is messy and imperfect, but a laissez faire approach that allows the market to resolve these competing claims does not sufficiently protect the common good.

The second conclusion drawn from the Oregon experience is that not many people realized what they were voting for. People who voted for the measure seem surprised by how Measure 37 is playing out in reality. The danger of seemingly innocuous ballot measures is that they hide the true impact on a state. “Shouldn’t property owners be compensated for changes in regulations which diminish the value of their properties?” When you state it that way, the answer is a resounding “Yes!” Anything else would be anti-American. The reality is that if you care about the quality of life in your communities and want to curb the sprawl which has destroyed precious open lands, a “no” vote sounds the most patriotic to me.

The sub-plot to this and other ballot initiatives is that most of the anti-government ballot initiatives across the country have been funded by a few wealthy individuals. Howard Rich, the de facto head and sugar daddy of the libertarian movement, has funded not only the property rights initiatives but state spending cap and term limit initiatives across the country. After losing the term limit fight at the Federal level ten years ago, Rich turned his attention to state elections, and has found that his money goes a lot further in influencing election outcomes. People like Rich and the professional initiative writers like Tim Eyman in Washington and in Bill Sizemore in Oregon have given the initiative process a bad name. The voters of Colorado passed one of Rich’s state spending cap initiatives and then voted to suspend it after witnessing the draconian impact of the restrictions on the state’s budget. As The Economist pointed out a few years back, in states like California, real policy change has primarily occurred in recent years through initiatives. The legislature has basically ceded its responsibility for sweeping policy changes to the people. When initiatives are conceived in a thoughtful manner and arise from concern from local citizens, they can reflect the true desires of the electorate and be a force for positive change. Rich and others, however, have bastardized one of few remaining vehicles for true democracy in this country. Until proven otherwise, I suggest a vote against any initiative funded by outsiders and professional initiative writers.

As I discussed in a previous post, the voters of Seattle will be considering an unprecedented property tax levy to pay for a range of transportation projects. This Seattle P-I article provides an excellent summary of the measure. Most of the funds will be spent on road improvements, with a fraction devoted to bike paths and lanes. I have mixed feelings about this initiative because it continues the massive subsidies to car drivers. The dysfunctional character of transportation funding in this country requires that alternative transportation advocates support large scale road improvements projects in order to get the scraps dedicated to public transit and biking. In the public consciousness, transportation policy means making life easier for car drivers. Any money allocated to other forms of transportation is usually carved out of the largesse devoted to cars through the tireless work of committed advocates for alternative transportation. In this context, I’m not sure that bikers and walkers have any choice but to vote for this levy. I’m sure the City of Seattle is counting on votes from alternative transportation folks to pass this measure. I just wish the price for buying this support was higher.

One of the pleasures of living in Oregon is that we get to vote by mail. So not only can we vote in the comfort of our homes without the pressure of long lines behind us, but nobody has to drive a car to vote. That's an election day outcome to please everyone.