The New York Times freaked out about this ruling, proclaiming it doom for "sustainable growth." The libertarian Cato Institute mocked the NYT hysteria. We suggest readers read both arguments and come to their own conclusions.
Casual readers of Encinitas Undercover may have read this site's coverage of Proposition A as anti-property rights. This interpretation could not be further from the truth. We fully support the property owner's right to develop his property to the fullest extent allowed within existing neighborhood zoning. What we don't support is a developer bribing or otherwise persuading the city council to change the zoning for the developer's financial gain. Proposition A should, subject to court challenge, put an end to that sort of corruption.
And now back to Koontz and its impact on Encinitas. It would seem to this farm boy that Koontz prevents a lot of "Smart Growth" government extortion in exchange for upzoning, but Proposition A has already prohibited the same thing.... so Koontz can be seen as a rejection of the Smart Growth central planners, but Encinitas already rejected them. Koontz is therefore largely irrelevant to Encinitas as long as Proposition A stands.
That's our opinion... what's yours?
I would say PROP A is ahead of the curve.
ReplyDeleteThis ruling is irrelevant for Encinitas.
This case decided that when a governmental entity approves a development with certain conditions, like a requirement that a developer dedicate an easement to the public, the conditions would be considered a confiscation of private property unless the government could show a more or less equality between the conditions imposed and the resulting effects of the development.
ReplyDeleteThis simply means that the benefits the public gains must be balanced with the benefits the private property owner gains. In other words it must be fair. The New York Times and the Cato Institute represent different points of view on the interpretation of the ruling. For example, the public may gain open space and preservation of wetlands and the developer then gains access to public financed road, water, and sewer infrastructure, without which the developer would have to finance and construct on his own.
It doesn't appear that the Koontz case changes anything with Prop. A. If the developer and the city amicably agree on conditions, the project moves forward. If the developer demands new development rights, the city or the voters can say YES or No. If the answer is NO, there has been no confiscation of the property rights. The original rights still exist.
From reading both links, & thanks for posting them, I tend to agree with the Cato Institute's, too. That Florida city, from my initial reading, was being greedy. Koontz already had offered a great deal of his land as mitigation. It wasn't enough.
ReplyDeleteI feel that sustainable growth is too often a term used to allow denser & denser development. Also fees on individuals who want to remodel their properties are increased more & more by cities. These types of permitting fees have become a not-so-hidden tax, supporting city employees & contractors at the expense of the "little guy." The "big guys," like Paul Ecke III, can set up tax exempt, tax deductible foundations, like the Encinitas Preservation Association. Any money they or anyone donates to these foundations is tax deductible. Any properties they purchase & manage thru the foundation, pay no property taxes. In the case of the Boathouses, the EPA was reimbursed over $831,000 out of city grants, through affordable housing in lieu fees. Norby has refused to answer a public information request and has falsely claimed he was never forwarded the request thru the City. Why is Norby being so secretive, when his IRS Form 990's are publicly disclosable? That fact is clearly stated on the tax forms.
I know some developers have tried to take advantage of residents. They have usually done this in cooperation with the cities in which they plan to develop. I agree that the needs of the community, as supposedly represented by the cities, should be balanced with private property rights. Not every developer is "evil." I admire Koontz for fighting what seemed unjust to him. Too bad he died before the decision was made, but it's good it was made in his, and as I see it, all of our favor.
I don't trust cities to do the right thing. Ours didn't. In 2005 Encinitas gave Barratt America, since bankrupt, & similar developers a 40% permit fee reduction, because they build the same models, over & over, so they don't all need individual inspections. At the same time, Encinitas hiked the permit fees for individual homeowners, those wishing to remodel, do simple maintenance, or build individual homes, by far more than 40%. This increase was again raised, dramatically, in 2009, and the City wants to conduct a study to raise all city fees again, as it has done before.
The City has again discussed hiring a contractor to justify increasing fees by doing an analysis that will demonstrate that less than 40% of actual "costs" are recovered by fees. That's because the contractor factors in staff fees, maintenance fees, utility bills, everything, which should be coming out of the General Fund. For building permit fees, the fee payer is only supposed to have to pay actual inspection costs, according to State Law.
Thank goodness Prop A did pass here. We have so many lawyers in this country, hungry for their exorbitant fees, too. No matter what happens, whether an initiative passes, the Supreme Court makes a ruling, we're threatened with more & more lawsuits. Judges should start tossing out some of these nuisance lawsuits immediately when they're filed. But they go on & on, too often draining the life's savings of those who have been unjustly sued by those who would use the system to bully and to stifle freedom of expression and the pursuit of happiness.
I agree, the public good must be balanced with private rights. But the City of Encnitas has lost its perspective and has let its good judgment be clouded by insider interests, "leveraging influence" with their "symbiotic partners" on Council & staff. We couldn't even get a non "sponsored" State of the City Address this year, given as it has been traditionally, at City Hall.
This incestuous relationship has happened in cities across the U.S. I do respect private property rights, including the rights of pre-existing neighbors in the Desert Rose community.
Blah blah blah. Blahhhhh blahhhhh blahhhhhh.
DeleteBlah blah blah. Blahhhhh blahhhhh blog.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't care for the "in depth" observations and opinions, you are more than welcome to skip them. Just as I skip yours. (Not you, Fred. I like that you "own" your comments). Nothing to be afraid of. Flamers will be flamers.
ReplyDeleteHadn't read your comment yet, Lynn. Maybe I'm suffering from Prop A burnout, but the Koontz drama didn't rapture me or seem applicable to Encinitas. 11:27's articulation sounded like Charlie Brown's teacher to me, and who doesn't find that funny?
ReplyDeleteDalagher's State of the City address was at the Community Center as well, but the treats weren't nearly as good as the last one. Was impressed with his slide show though, that included a local statue dressed in funny costumes - so I partially blame him for making the Kook Calendar because the crowd went nuts!
And that's the way it is, Day 12 of no Prop A lawsuits.
Fred, his State of the City Address was repeated at City Hall, as I remember. And this time, there was a State of the City Committee with Peder Norby and Gus Vina on it, planning the sponsored, $20.00 per plate event.
ReplyDelete