by Donald J. Borut

For those of us who value the role of local government, it is troubling to see anti-government groups aggressively promoting state legislation and initiatives that fundamentally undermine the ability of cities and towns to provide services.

Of equal concern is that these efforts more often than not are promoted and funded by out-of-state groups and individuals who are not connected to the values and quality of life of the communities affected because they don?t work, live or raise their families there.

The latest assault on basic municipal and home rule authority is ?regulatory takings? measures initiated in 11 states. On Nov. 7, ballots in five states (Arizona, California, Idaho, Washington and Montana) will ask voters to approve regulatory takings measures. The Nevada Supreme Court recently struck a regulatory takings provision from that state?s ballots, and Montana?s Supreme Court may yet strike the measure from Montana?s ballots.

In one form or another, these measures would make it possible for private land owners and businesses to sue local government for financial losses attributable to government action such as changes in zoning regulations, environmental laws, smoking bans, living wage laws and regulation of adult entertainment.

The model for these initiatives is Oregon?s Measure 37, which to date has resulted in more than 3,000 claims filed against the state, and city and county governments. Claims for compensation against the State of Oregon alone total more than $6 billion. Under Measure 37, the government must either pay a claim or waive the regulation, thus undermining government?s ability to undertake any reasonable land use planning and control. If the initiative passes in the State of Washington, the projected costs to municipalities are between $7 billion and $8 billion.

Much of the funding of the regulatory takings and other ballot initiatives appears to be from Howard Rich, a wealthy libertarian real estate investor from New York who has contributed as much as $11 million to $14 million through organizations such as Americans for Limited Government.

More than 90 percent of the money supporting California?s Proposition 90, a regulatory takings initiative, comes from out of state. In Montana, not only is much of the money promoting the initiatives from out of state, but those gathering signatures are also from out of state.

According to Alec Hansen, executive director of the Montana League of Cities and Towns, ?The ability of Montana citizens to work through their local governments to protect the assets of their communities would be severely limited if the proposed initiatives promoted by non-residents of the state were adopted.?

A number of these initiatives are framed as efforts to protect against the alleged abuse of the power of eminent domain drawing on the emotional fallout from the Kelo v. the City of New London Supreme Court decision. However, the initiatives go far beyond limiting the use of eminent domain for economic development and would cripple local government?s ability to provide prudent land use management through zoning and other regulations.

Ironically, in the case of Montana, the state doesn?t permit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes, but that hasn?t prevented the proponents of these initiatives from piggybacking on the national emotional tsunami created by the Kelo case.

The columnist Neal Peirce recently observed, ?Losing unfettered eminent domain power may hinder local government, but there?s a much more damaging threat lurking in similar sounding proposals ? so-called ?regulatory taking? measures facing voters?.?

David Goldberg, communications director of Smart Growth America, is quoted as saying ?these takings initiatives say that when you change a regulation and it reduces the speculative value of my property, you have to pay that. The absurdity of it becomes clear when you look at the inverse: If you change a regulation that increases the value of my property, I owe [the government] the total amount of the profit.?

Needless to say none of the property rights advocates are suggesting or even acknowledging this disparity. They seem to be blind to the constructive and positive impact of government regulation on both the economic benefit to the community at large and individual properties and businesses.

Fortunately, resident groups and individuals within states and from across the political spectrum are spending their own money and aggressively speaking out to confront these anti-government groups that fail to recognize that balanced regulations make good neighbors and strong communities.

In California, business and economic interest groups, laborers, taxpayers, financial services, homeowners and others are all opposing Proposition 90 as a ?Tax Payer Trap.? According to an Oct. 8 article in the New York Times, a venture capitalist in Idaho, Nils Ribi, is ?trying to galvanize opposition to the [regulatory takings initiative] by tapping the same independent streak that may make some?Idahoans interested in the measure.?

The article quotes Ribi as saying, ?These are guys on the right wing who always want local control, and all of a sudden they?re saying let?s let these guys in Washington, D.C., and outside think tanks take control.?

Equally important, local elected officials who have the responsibility of making tough land use and regulatory decisions in the interests of their communities are also standing up to these draconian threats. They are fighting the emotional arguments of the initiative proponents with facts, figures and the passion of those who care about their communities and citizens ? all of their citizens.