2006 Ballot Propositions & Judicial Performance Review

PROPOSITION 207

OFFICIAL TITLE

TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Short title

This act may be cited as the "Private Property Rights Protection Act".

Sec. 2. Findings and declarations

A. The people of Arizona find and declare:

1. Article 2, section 17 of our State Constitution declares in no uncertain terms that private property shall not be taken for private use.

2. Our Constitution further provides that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.

3. Finally, our Constitution does not permit property to be taken or damaged without just compensation having first been made.

4. Notwithstanding these clear constitutional rights, the state and municipal governments of Arizona consistently encroach on the rights of private citizens to own and use their property, requiring the people of this State to seek redress in our state and federal courts which have not always adequately protected private property rights as demanded by the State and Federal Constitutions. For example:

(a) A recent United States Supreme Court ruling, Kelo v. City of New London, allowed a city to exercise its power of eminent domain to take a citizen's home for the purpose of transferring control of the land to a private commercial developer.

(b) The City of Mesa used eminent domain to acquire and bulldoze homes for a redevelopment project that included a hotel and water park. After the developer's financing fell through the project was abandoned and the property left vacant.

(c) The City of Mesa filed condemnation actions against Randy Bailey, to take his family-owned brake shop, and Patrick Dennis, to take his auto-body shop, so that local business owners could relocate and expand a hardware store and an appliance store.

(d) The City of Tempe instituted an eminent domain action to condemn the home of Kenneth and Mary Ann Pillow in order to transfer their property to a private developer who planned to build upscale townhomes.

(e) The City of Chandler filed a condemnation action against a fast food restaurant in order to replace the fast-food restaurant with upscale dining and retail uses.

(f) In the wake of the Kelo ruling, the City of Tempe recently sought to condemn property in an industrial park in order to make way for an enormous retail shopping mall.

(g) The City of Tempe told the owners of an Apache Boulevard bowling alley that the City intended to condemn their property and specifically instructed them not to make further improvements to the land. Heeding Tempe's advice, the owners made no further improvements and ultimately lost bowling league contracts and went out of business. The Arizona Court of Appeals refused the owners' request for just compensation.

(h) Courts have also allowed state and local governments to impose significant prohibitions and restrictions on the use of private property without compensating the owner for the economic loss of value to that property.

5. For home owners in designated slum or blighted areas, the compensation received when a primary residence is seized is not truly just as required by our state constitution.

6. Furthermore, even when property is taken for a valid public use, the judicial processes available to property owners to obtain just compensation are burdensome, costly and unfair.

B. Having made the above findings, the people of Arizona declare that all property rights are fundamental rights and that all people have inalienable rights including the right to acquire, possess, control and protect property. Therefore the citizens of the State of Arizona hereby adopt the Private Property Rights Protection Act to ensure that Arizona citizens do not lose their home or property or lose the value of their home or property without just compensation. Whenever state and local governments take or diminish the value of private property, it is the intent of this act that the owner will receive just compensation, either by negotiation or by an efficient and fair judicial process.

Sec. 3. Title 12, chapter 8, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 2.1, to read:

Article 2.1. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT

12-1131. PROPERTY MAY BE TAKEN ONLY FOR PUBLIC USE CONSISTENT WITH THIS ARTICLE

EMINENT DOMAIN MAY BE EXERCISED ONLY IF THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS AUTHORIZED BY THIS STATE, WHETHER BY STATUTE OR OTHERWISE, AND FOR A PUBLIC USE AS DEFINED BY THIS ARTICLE.

12-1132. BURDEN OF PROOF

A. IN ALL EMINENT DOMAIN ACTIONS THE JUDICIARY SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STATE CONSTITUTION'S MANDATE THAT WHENEVER AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR A USE ALLEGED TO BE PUBLIC, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CONTEMPLATED USE BE REALLY PUBLIC SHALL BE A JUDICIAL QUESTION, AND DETERMINED AS SUCH WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY LEGISLATIVE ASSERTION THAT THE USE IS PUBLIC.

B. IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT, THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE SHALL ESTABLISH BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT EACH PARCEL IS NECESSARY TO ELIMINATE A DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY CAUSED BY THE PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE BEYOND REPAIR OR UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION OR USE, OR TO ACQUIRE ABANDONED PROPERTY AND THAT NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE TO CONDEMNATION EXISTS.

12-1133. JUST COMPENSATION; SLUM CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT

IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT, IF PRIVATE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE IS TAKEN, THE OCCUPANTS SHALL BE PROVIDED A COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT DWELLING THAT IS DECENT, SAFE, AND SANITARY AS DEFINED IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL RELOCATION LAWS, SECTION 11-961 ET SEQ. AND 42 USC 4601 ET SEQ., AND THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER. AT THE OWNER'S ELECTION, IF MONETARY COMPENSATION IS DESIRED IN LIEU OF A REPLACEMENT DWELLING, THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION THAT IS MADE AND DETERMINED FOR THAT TAKING SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE SUM OF MONEY THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PURCHASE A COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT DWELLING THAT IS DECENT, SAFE, AND SANITARY AS DEFINED IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL RELOCATION LAWS AND REGULATIONS.

12-1134. DIMINUTION IN VALUE; JUST COMPENSATION

A. IF THE EXISTING RIGHTS TO USE, DIVIDE, SELL OR POSSESS PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY ARE REDUCED BY THE ENACTMENT OR APPLICABILITY OF ANY LAND USE LAW ENACTED AFTER THE DATE THE PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED TO THE OWNER AND SUCH ACTION REDUCES THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY THE OWNER IS ENTITLED TO JUST COMPENSATION FROM THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ENACTED THE LAND USE LAW.

B. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO LAND USE LAWS THAT:

1. LIMIT OR PROHIBIT A USE OR DIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH AND SAFETY, INCLUDING RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO FIRE AND BUILDING CODES, HEALTH AND SANITATION, TRANSPORTATION OR TRAFFIC CONTROL, SOLID OR HAZARDOUS WASTE, AND POLLUTION CONTROL;

2. LIMIT OR PROHIBIT THE USE OR DIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY AND HISTORICALLY RECOGNIZED AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE UNDER COMMON LAW;

3. ARE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW;

4. LIMIT OR PROHIBIT THE USE OR DIVISION OF A PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOUSING SEX OFFENDERS, SELLING ILLEGAL DRUGS, LIQUOR CONTROL, OR PORNOGRAPHY, OBSCENITY, NUDE OR TOPLESS DANCING, AND OTHER ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES IF THE LAND USE LAWS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THIS STATE AND THE UNITED STATES;

5. ESTABLISH LOCATIONS FOR UTILITY FACILITIES;

6. DO NOT DIRECTLY REGULATE AN OWNER'S LAND; OR

7. WERE ENACTED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION.

C. THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ENACTED THE LAND USE LAW HAS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THAT THE LAND USE LAW IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION B.

D. THE OWNER SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO FIRST SUBMIT A LAND USE APPLICATION TO REMOVE, MODIFY, VARY OR OTHERWISE ALTER THE APPLICATION OF THE LAND USE LAW TO THE OWNER'S PROPERTY AS A PREREQUISITE TO DEMANDING OR RECEIVING JUST COMPENSATION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.

E. IF A LAND USE LAW CONTINUES TO APPLY TO PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY MORE THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY MAKES A WRITTEN DEMAND IN A SPECIFIC AMOUNT FOR JUST COMPENSATION TO THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ENACTED THE LAND USE LAW, THE OWNER HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION IN A COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, UNLESS THIS STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE AND THE OWNER REACH AN AGREEMENT ON THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION TO BE PAID, OR UNLESS THIS STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE AMENDS, REPEALS, OR ISSUES TO THE LANDOWNER A BINDING WAIVER OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW ON THE OWNER'S SPECIFIC PARCEL.

F. ANY DEMAND FOR LANDOWNER RELIEF OR ANY WAIVER THAT IS GRANTED IN LIEU OF COMPENSATION RUNS WITH THE LAND.

G. AN ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION BASED ON DIMINUTION IN VALUE MUST BE MADE OR FOREVER BARRED WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LAND USE LAW, OR OF THE FIRST DATE THE REDUCTION OF THE EXISTING RIGHTS TO USE, DIVIDE, SELL OR POSSESS PROPERTY APPLIES TO THE OWNER'S PARCEL, WHICHEVER IS LATER.

H. THE REMEDY CREATED BY THIS SECTION IS IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER REMEDY THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE OR THE UNITED STATES AND IS NOT INTENDED TO MODIFY OR REPLACE ANY OTHER REMEDY.

I. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PROHIBITS THIS STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE FROM REACHING AN AGREEMENT WITH A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO WAIVE A CLAIM FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE REGARDING ANY PROPOSED ACTION BY THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE OR ACTION REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.

12-1135. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

A. A PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT LIABLE TO THIS STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE FOR ATTORNEY FEES OR COSTS IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION OR IN ANY ACTION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE.

B. A PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES IN EVERY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION IN WHICH THE TAKING IS FOUND TO BE NOT FOR A PUBLIC USE.

C. IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT, A PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES IN EVERY CASE IN WHICH THE FINAL AMOUNT OFFERED BY THE MUNICIPALITY WAS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT ASCERTAINED BY A JURY OR THE COURT IF A JURY IS WAIVED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.

D. A PREVAILING PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION THAT IS BASED ON DIMINUTION IN VALUE PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-1134 MAY BE AWARDED COSTS, EXPENSES AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES.

12-1136. DEFINITIONS

IN THIS ARTICLE, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:

1. "FAIR MARKET VALUE" MEANS THE MOST LIKELY PRICE ESTIMATED IN TERMS OF MONEY WHICH THE LAND WOULD BRING IF EXPOSED FOR SALE IN THE OPEN MARKET, WITH REASONABLE TIME ALLOWED IN WHICH TO FIND A PURCHASER, BUYING WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THE USES AND PURPOSES TO WHICH IT IS ADAPTED AND FOR WHICH IT IS CAPABLE.

2. "JUST COMPENSATION" FOR PURPOSES OF AN ACTION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE MEANS THE SUM OF MONEY THAT IS EQUAL TO THE REDUCTION IN FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY RESULTING FROM THE ENACTMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW AS OF THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW.

3. "LAND USE LAW" MEANS ANY STATUTE, RULE, ORDINANCE, RESOLUTION OR LAW ENACTED BY THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT REGULATES THE USE OR DIVISION OF LAND OR ANY INTEREST IN LAND OR THAT REGULATES ACCEPTED FARMING OR FORESTRY PRACTICES.

4. "OWNER" MEANS THE HOLDER OF FEE TITLE TO THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY.

5. "PUBLIC USE":

(a) MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(i) THE POSSESSION, OCCUPATION, AND ENJOYMENT OF THE LAND BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC, OR BY PUBLIC AGENCIES;

(ii) THE USE OF LAND FOR THE CREATION OR FUNCTIONING OF UTILITIES;

(iii) THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY TO ELIMINATE A DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY CAUSED BY THE PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF A STRUCTURE THAT IS BEYOND REPAIR OR UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION OR USE; OR

(iv) THE ACQUISITION OF ABANDONED PROPERTY.

(b) DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING AN INCREASE IN TAX BASE, TAX REVENUES, EMPLOYMENT OR GENERAL ECONOMIC HEALTH.

6. "TAKEN" AND "TAKING" MEAN THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OR USE FROM A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE OR TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE.

12-1137. APPLICABILITY

IF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS ARTICLE AND ANY OTHER LAW ARISES, THIS ARTICLE CONTROLS.

12-1138. SEVERABILITY

IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR ITS APPLICATION TO ANY PERSON OR CIRCUMSTANCE IS HELD INVALID THAT INVALIDITY DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER PROVISIONS OR APPLICATIONS OF THE ACT THAT CAN BE GIVEN EFFECT WITHOUT THE INVALID PROVISION OR APPLICATION, AND TO THIS END THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT ARE SEVERABLE.

 

ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Eminent domain is the power of the government to take private property for public use. Proposition 207 sets forth the rights of a property owner when the state or a local government exercises the power of eminent domain. (These rights are in addition to the current statutory and constitutional rights.)

Proposition 207 would limit the use of eminent domain to situations where eminent domain is authorized by the state and the property taken is put to a public use. The proposition defines "public use" to include:

1. The use of land by the general public or by public agencies.

2. The use of land for utilities.

3. The acquisition of property to eliminate a direct threat to the public health or safety caused by the current condition of the property.

4. The acquisition of abandoned property.

Proposition 207 excludes from the definition of public use the public benefits of economic development.

The Arizona constitution prohibits a government from taking private property, unless the government provides just compensation to the property owner. Proposition 207 provides that as just compensation when a person's primary residence is taken by the government, the person must be provided a comparable replacement dwelling that is decent, safe and sanitary. The property owner may choose to receive money compensation instead of the replacement dwelling.

Proposition 207 also provides that a property owner is entitled to just compensation if the value of a person's property is reduced by the enactment of a land use law. A land use law is defined as a law that regulates the use or division of land, such as municipal zoning laws, or regulates accepted farming or forestry practices. The proposition sets out seven types of land use laws that are exempt from the compensation requirement.

If a property owner were successful in an eminent domain law suit, Proposition 207 would require the government to pay the land owner's attorney fees and costs. If a property owner were successful in a law suit for reduction in the property's value, the court could award attorney fees and costs.

 

FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT

State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of certain ballot measures. Proposition 207 may increase the cost to state and local government to acquire private property for public use in some circumstances. The proposition also requires a property owner to be compensated, including reasonable attorney fees, if the value of a person's property is reduced by the enactment of a land use law.

The proposition also prohibits the use of eminent domain for economic development. If state and local governments reduce their use of eminent domain as a result, their compensation costs may decline.

The overall fiscal impact will be affected by how the proposition affects the level of economic development in a community.

 

ARGUMENTS "FOR" PROPOSITION 207

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned eminent domain abuse with its controversial decision, Kelo v. New London, which said that governments can take private property for third-party private development. Since then, private property rights have literally been bulldozed across the country, with reports of eminent domain abuse skyrocketing since last year.

In November, Arizonans will have the chance to vote their property rights back into existence with Proposition 207. This proposition, the Arizona HomeOwners Protection Effort (HOPE), will return airtight property rights protection to our state.

Proposition 207 addresses government property takings, whether by eminent domain or by uncompensated regulation. Right now in Arizona, your property value can be erased with the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen--and under our current law, no compensation is required. Local governments can also take your property through eminent domain, and your only recourse would be to battle it out in the courts. We need a law on the books to protect Arizonans from these kinds of abuses. That's why we need Proposition 207.

Proposition 207 will prevent Arizonans' private property from being taken unjustly (for private development and higher tax revenue) and it will require that property owners be justly compensated if there is a taking. It's that simple. It's the right thing to do.

No one's home is safe from government seizure while these takings--both from eminent domain and uncompensated regulation--are allowed to continue. Thousands of people across the state have already joined together to end unjust government takings in Arizona--the HOPE committee submitted nearly 225,000 signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.

If you value your property rights, join us. Vote yes on Proposition 207 in November.

Carol Springer, Chairman, Arizona HOPE, Prescott,

Paid for by "Arizona Home Owners Protection Effort"

The Arizona Farm Bureau supports proposition 207.

This proposition amends the Arizona constitution to reinforce that definitions of "public use" in the eminent domain process are truly the province of the judicial system and not cities, counties or state government. It also sets up more clarity and process so that slum clearance is truly warranted, rather than an effort masquerading as an attempt to "upgrade" private property from one private hand to another, rather than legitimate and limited public needs.

This proposition also addresses the area of "takings", i.e. reduction in fair market value due to the enactment of any land use law.

With the uncertainty created by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Kelo decision, which forces property owners to look over their shoulders and be wary of government, this proposition dampens the enthusiasm of local governments to use eminent domain for anything they wish.

Our institutions (U.S. and Arizona Constitutions, and the Bill of Rights) were designed to protect private property. The Kelo decision undermined those institutions. We should not fear our government as private property owners. This proposition strengthens our Constitution on property rights.

Vote YES on Proposition 207

Kevin G. Rogers, President, Arizona Farm Bureau, Mesa	James W. Klinker, Chief Administrative Officer, Arizona Farm Bureau, Mesa
Paid for by "Arizona Farm Bureau"

I proudly served as a U.S. Air Force policeman, a City of Flagstaff Deputy City Attorney (prosecutor), and a Deputy Maricopa County Attorney (felony prosecutor). In those government positions I was taught to seek and pursue justice--not just arrests or convictions. I appreciated that abuse of governmental power was an evil that must be avoided.

In 2002, I discovered that we have many government officials who never learned this lesson. I witnessed the outrageous arrogance, and abuse of power, by officials in my hometown. In the case of City of Tempe vs. Pillow, the city "redevelopment thugs" (i.e., our mayor, city counsel members, redevelopment staff, and city attorneys) abused their eminent domain power by trying to take the home of an elderly couple. The city had made a deal with a developer to declare the area a redevelopment zone, and literally bullied most of the area property owners into selling for a mere fraction of the fair value. The city made the developers a sweat heart deal just to increase tax revenues and build town houses. As a trial lawyer, I was proud to represent Mr. and Mrs. Pillow in their successful fight to save their home.

Article 2, Section 17, of the Arizona Constitution and the Bailey Brake case are not enough. When the city "redevelopment thugs" come calling, property owners need more legal weapons to "slay the evil dragon of government abuse." This Proposition gives you some of those weapons. I strongly urge you to vote yes.

Timothy L. Moulton, Attorney at Law, Tempe

On June 23, 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a cruel blow to property owners by allowing the City of New London, Connecticut to take peoples' homes along the waterfront and give them to a private developer in order for the City to realize higher tax revenues. This is the Kelo case and it sparked a nationwide movement to defend the homes and businesses of property owners.

But in Arizona, private property protections failed when Governor Napolitano vetoed House Bill 2675, which would have blocked eminent domain abuses. Some property rights protections passed the State Senate, but stalled in the House. Thankfully the Arizona Home Owners Protection Effort (HOPE) is taking property rights protections directly to the voters.

Proposition 207 addresses government takings, whether by eminent domain or regulation. It prevents the government from taking private property for third-party private development merely to increase tax revenue, and ensures just compensation for property owners in public use takings and when governmental regulation devalues property.

Under current law, and especially after Kelo, no home or business is safe from government seizure. The courts can't be trusted to protect us and Arizonans need to be protected by the law. Proposition 207 will give Arizonans the property rights protections we deserve.

On November 7, 2006 we have a choice. We can continue to allow government to give our homes and business to others for their gain, or we can secure once again our rights to the fruits of our labors and secure for our children those same rights for generations to come.

I support Arizona HOPE's initiative, I'm glad to see Proposition 207 on the ballot. Join us in ending property rights abuses in Arizona--vote YES on Proposition 207 this November .

Senator Chuck Gray, Mesa

Property Rights, Stewardship and Freedom cannot be separated. Arizona's cattle producing families understand property rights - it is the foundation by which we produce food for our tables, it is the foundation for how we raise our families, it is the foundation by which we apply conservation so that our children may continue to steward and shepherd the land for the benefits of future generations.

Property rights means more than the freedom to use one's property in a legal fashion - it means bountiful rewards, it means passing it on from one generation to the next and it provides the basis for making proper decisions today because of the assurance we will have the ability to reap its rewards tomorrow. Whether it is our home, the open spaces where we raise our cattle or our livestock - it is all property worth protecting.

Individual rights are inseparable from property rights. We live in the most prosperous nation on the planet because the land contains abundant natural resources and the people have been free to produce from these lands to create wealth and bountiful supplies.

The principle that an individual be free to reap the fruits of his labor, or suffer loss from imprudent action, is fundamental, and provides economic incentive for a property owner to use his property wisely. But to use property wisely, the owner must be confidant that the government, or judicial system, will protect his rights.

The protection of property rights is fundamental to the preservation of civil liberties.

Please join us in voting YES on Proposition 207.

Bill Brake, ACGA President, Arizona Cattlemen's Association, Scottsdale	Scott Shill, ACFA President, Arizona Cattlemen's Association, Welton
Paid for by "Arizona Cattlemen's Association"

Several years ago, my business partners and I invested in property in Pima County that was zoned for retail business use. The County Board of Supervisors, however, quickly down-zoned the land after we purchased it----and now it's worth a fraction of what we paid.

We spent a lot of time and resources seeking justice, and the courts just ruled against us for the fourth time. We are tired, frustrated, and, simply stuck. A cabal of local bureaucrats have eliminated our property rights.

This is why I support Proposition 207, the Arizona HomeOwners Protection Effort (HOPE). Kelo paved the way for bulldozed property rights nationwide, and Arizona is no exception. Under current law, the government can seize private property for private purposes with eminent domain. It is also not required to compensate property owners when regulations devalue their land. Arizona needs real property rights protection.

Proposition 207 will do just that. It prohibits the government from taking private property for third-party private development and it ensures just compensation for property owners when government regulations diminish property value.

Those who say we can rely on the courts to protect our property rights are dead wrong. The courts are often the problem, not the solution. My business partners and I were fortunate enough to have had the resources to try to fight our case. Most people don't, however--and they will lose every time. Citizens shouldn't have to waste time and money fighting for their most basic right--our property rights must be protected by the law.

Proposition 207 will give Arizona the airtight property rights protection laws it needs to stop these abuses--vote YES in November.

Emmet McLoughlin, Tucson

As a homeowner, parent, neighborhood leader, and school volunteer, I SUPPORT this proposition. Owning our homes and small businesses is part of the American Dream. We cannot allow cities and states to take them away from us just because they want to build a more profitable shopping center. We cannot stand silent. We must protect our country and it's individual freedoms. In the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of Kelo vs. New London, Ms. Kelo's small private home was taken away from her in order to replace it with a development including a resort hotel and conference center. This proposition will exclude from the definition of public use, the public benefits of economic development. We must stop this insanity.

Please vote YES.

Debbie Lesko, Glendale Neighborhood Leader and Candidate for Peoria School Board, Glendale

Arizona Needs eminent domain reform. The Governor vetoed the eminent domain reforms adopted by the Legislature this year, but you, the voter, now have the opportunity to clearly define and strictly limit this despotic power. Together, we will ensure that government can't take away our homes and businesses for the benefit of private developers.

Many remember Randy Bailey's fight to protect his family-owned brake shop from Mesa's attempt to bulldoze it so a local developer could relocate and expand his ACE Hardware store. Our state Court of Appeals blocked this naked transfer of land to private interests, but Arizona's Supreme Court has said similar condemnations may be permissible if cities first declare the area "blighted." Frighteningly, our state courts routinely rubber stamp municipal declarations of "blight," even bogus blight, and then allow cities to take and demolish safe and clean properties if the property is located in a so-called "redevelopment area." That means no matter how well you maintain your home or business it is not safe from local governments' efforts to seize property for private commercial development.

The League of Arizona Cities and Towns has already asked the Arizona Supreme Court to reject the Bailey case and to adopt the "anything goes" standard announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in its infamous Kelo v. City of New London decision, which said that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit taking private property for private use. Rather than wait and see if the Arizona Supreme Court abandons its responisibility to protect our homes by applying Kelo in Arizona, you can prevent future abuse of eminent domain by voting for Proposition 207, the Private Property Rights Protection Act.

Tim Keller, Executive Director, Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter, Chandler	William H. Mellor, President and General Counsel, Institute for Justice, Falls Church
Paid for by "Institute for Justice"

Regulatory Justice

After struggling with cancer and spousal abuse, Rita Ulsheimer bought a humble home in Apache Junction and planned to retire there. She particularly liked the awning next to the house that would cover her car from the scorching Arizona sun. But city inspectors demanded she tear down the awning because it violated the city code; on top of that they wanted her to pay to tear it down.

If Ms. Ulsheimer had built her awning knowing it violated the city code, it should have been removed. But she was innocent; the awning was there when she bought her home. Voting Yes for the Private Property Rights Protection Act will empower people like Rita Ulsheimer to get compensation for the reduction in their property's value caused by unnecessary regulations.

The Act will not restrict cities' ability to protect the health and safety of the people. If a city shows that a zoning rule relates to pollution, building codes, fire danger, or a long list of other concerns, the city does not have to pay property owners for the cost of the regulation. Instead, the Act puts citizens on equal footing with the city when it comes to enforcement of zoning rules that have nothing to do with health or safety.

As long as cities pass unnecessary zoning regulations, the only fair solution is a regulatory takings law that balances the zoning needs of the community with the rights of the people. A Yes vote on Prop. 207 means a balanced approach to property rights and a step toward fairness in zoning decisions.

For more information about eminent domain and regulatory takings visit www.hopeforarizona.com.

Jim Manley, Tempe	Tim Keller, Attorney-at-Law, Chandler
Jennifer Perkins, Attorney-at-Law, Mesa
Paid for by "Jim Manly"

This November, there will be a measure on the ballot that will protect one of our most essential freedoms: private property rights. Proposition 207, the Arizona Home Owners Protection Effort (HOPE), will protect Arizonans from the rampant eminent domain abuse sanctioned by the Kelo decision.

Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that governments could take property using eminent domain for purposes other than "public use"--namely, economic development that boosts their tax rolls. Kelo illustrated that no property owner's rights are safe from bureaucratic bulldozing, and it has sparked a national movement to save private property rights.

Thankfully, we have a chance to stop these injustices in Arizona. It is imperative that Arizonans take advantage of the chance to define our state government's boundaries this November.

Proposition 207 will do just that, stopping abusive government takings once and for all. It clearly defines acceptable uses of eminent domain for true public use, and it gives Arizonans the real property rights protection they need. Proposition 207 will stop the government from taking private property for third-party private development simply to increase tax revenue, and it will ensure that property owners are justly compensated when governmental regulations devalue their property, or when their property is needed for legitimate public use.

It's simple. It's common sense. It's the sound property rights protection Arizona needs.

City planning has been happening for hundreds of years, and it will continue without abuses of governmental power. Private property rights are embedded in the American Dream; they are one of our most basic freedoms--and Proposition 207 will protect private property rights in Arizona.

Please vote YES on Proposition 207.

Lori Klein, Anthem

Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned eminent domain abuse with the controversial Kelo v. New London decision, in which they ruled that the government could take private property for private development.

However, the effects of the Kelo decision reached much farther than New London, Connecticut. Across the county, Americans' property rights have been trampled by big money and special interests. Kelo sparked a nationwide reaction from citizens who joined together to defend their property rights. Now, in November, Arizonans can vote to restore our property rights with Proposition 207.

Proposition 207 addresses government takings, whether by eminent domain or by regulatory takings. It prevents the government from seizing private property for third-party private development and it ensures that property owners are justly compensated when the government takes private property for true public purpose and when governmental regulation diminishes their property value.

It's simple: vote yes on Proposition 207 and reverse the injustice created by Kelo. Proposition 207 will give Arizonans the property rights we deserve.

Kelo proved that we can't trust the courts to protect our property rights. Across the country, courts have ruled in favor of bureaucrats and tax dollars instead of property owners. Furthermore, citizens can't afford to spend the time, emotion, and resources to fight in court every time the government abuses its power with eminent domain. We need our property rights protected by the law.

Proposition 207 will do exactly that--and my vote in November will be a resounding YES. Please join me, and restore property rights to Arizonans.

Joyce E. Downey, Scottsdale

Paid for by "Arizona Home Owners Protection Effort"

This summer, the Arizona HomeOwners Protection Effort (HOPE) submitted nearly 225,000 signatures from people across the state who supported their property rights protection initiative. Now--luckily for Arizona property owners--that initiative, now Proposition 207, is headed for the November ballot. To put an end to the eminent domain abuse that strips Arizonans of their most basic freedom, vote YES on Proposition 207 this fall.

Proposition 207 will reverse the takings abuse that became acceptable after the Kelo decision, giving Arizonans airtight property rights protection. Currently, bureaucrats can seize your home or business to hand over to a private developer simply to increase tax revenue. In the name of the almighty dollar, unfair government takings have become commonplace because of Kelo.

But in November, Arizonans can put their foot down to end this injustice in their state.

Proposition 207 eliminates unjust government takings, whether by eminent domain or regulation. Not only does it stop bureaucrats from taking private property for private development, but it also requires that property owners are justly compensated in valid takings for public good and when governmental regulation devalues their property.

It's simple: Proposition 207 restores private property rights to Arizonans, protecting them from powerful special interests and politicians who abuse their power. No one should argue with that.

I fully support Proposition 207 and in November, I'll be voting YES for Arizona property rights. Please join me.

John Norton, Paradise Valley

Paid for by "Arizona Home Owners Protection Effort"

A property rights revolution has been sweeping the country every since last June, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government could take private property for third-party private development in the Kelo v. New London decision. In response, citizens have joined together to enact sound property rights protection in their states.

In November, Arizonans will have a chance to stop the government takings abuse in our own state with Proposition 207.

Proposition 207 stops the government from seizing private property for private development just to boost tax revenue, and it also requires that property owners be justly compensated in justifiable eminent domain takings and when governmental regulation devalues their property.

In short, Proposition 207 protects Arizonans from unjust government takings, and it gives us the property rights protection that we have needed since Kelo.

No one's property is safe while takings abuse is allowed to continue across the country. Kelo made it painfully clear that we can't trust the courts to give us the property rights protection that we're entitled to. Property rights are one of our most essential freedoms--they're embedded in the American Dream. Proposition 207 will protect that, and prevent governmental takings abuse in Arizona.

I wholeheartedly support Proposition 207, and in November I'll be voting YES for it. Please join me, and help protect Arizonans' property rights.

Becky Fenger, Phoenix

Paid for by "Arizona Home Owners Protection Effort"

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

So wrote Arizona's own Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her strong dissent in the controversial Kelo v. New London case. Many believe that case calls into question constitutionally protected property rights all across America. One positive outcome of that controversial case was the recognition of a clear path that Congress and/or the states can follow to protect their homeowners and small businesses.

Proposition 207 is Arizona's opportunity to remove any ambiguity and loopholes in Arizona law that would allow for unfair and unjust private property takings through the otherwise legitimate power of eminent domain. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry urges Arizona voters to vote YES on Proposition 207 to protect homes and businesses from egregious over-reaching by government.

Eminent domain is the awesome power of the government to take private property for public use with just compensation for the targeted property owner. Our Founding Fathers enshrined this principle in our Bill of Rights with the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If passed, Proposition 207 would limit the use of eminent domain to situations where it fits strict pro-property-owner restrictions found in the proposition. They include banning efforts to replace one property owner with another for no other reason than economic development to increase the tax base. Proposition 207 also protects private property owners from the loss of property value from a downgrading of a property by government.

For these and other sound public policy reasons, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry recommends Arizonans vote YES on Proposition 207, the Private Property Protection Act.

Steve Twist, Chairman of Board of Directors, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Scottsdale	James J. Apperson, President & CEO, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Scottsdale
Paid for by "Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry"

One of the most important liberties of the American republic is private property rights. In response to the recent Kelo decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, many states and localities have taken legislative action to further protect property owners from big government and big business attempts to condemn private property for use in private development activities.

Five years ago the City of Mesa tried to `take' Randy Bailey's family-owned brake shop because they wanted to help a developer relocate and expand his ACE Hardware store. Luckily the Arizona Court of Appeals put a stop to this theft. More recently the City of Tempe tried to do the same thing when it attempted to condemn 13 businesses so it could make way for a massive new retail project. Not to be outdone, the City of Scottsdale, through its regulatory authority, in 1993 declared its downtown a slum so it could make way for condemnation. That was the same year Scottsdale won the U.S. Conference of Mayors "Most Livable Cities" award.

Proposition 207 is Arizona's answer to this growing problem. Legislative action was blocked by powerful local government interests who want to benefit from the ability to force people to sell their property against their will. Proposition 207 limits and tightens the government's ability to effectively `take' your property by placing unfair and unreasonable regulations on it.

It is important for Arizona to compete effectively in attracting and retaining businesses. One of the ways to do that is to protect the investments we make in our homes and businesses from unwarranted seizure and restriction.

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club urges a Yes vote on Proposition 207.

Dean Riesen, Chairman, Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Phoenix	Steve Voeller, President, Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Cave Creek
Paid for by "Arizona Free Enterprise Club"

ARGUMENTS "AGAINST" PROPOSITION 207

AGAINST

This Initiative has been funded almost entirely by the Illinois-based group Americans for Limited Government. It should be called the Anti-Neighborhood Preservation and Conservation Act rather than the Private Property Rights Protection Act.

Section 12-1135. Diminution In Value: Just compensation of this Initiative reads almost exactly as provisions of SCR 1019 and HCR 2031 which were defeated this past session of your State Legislature. This section permits property owners to claim compensation for alleged reduction in fair market value from enactment or enforcement of any land use law passed after acquisition. It has NOTHING to do with Eminent Domain and could require municipalities to compensate property owners for every zoning or land use decision they make.

Examples of actions that could trigger lawsuits and payments:

• Change from commercial residential or industrial use, or changes in density
• Approval or disapproval of building height limits
• Approval or disapproval of liquor licenses
• Approval or disapproval of historic overlay zoning
• Approval or disapproval of neighborhood - developed special planning districts
• Enforcement or enactment of neighborhood preservation codes
• Regulation of business hours or building design standards

This initiative will cost taxpayers millions, encourage speculative land deals and frivolous litigation.

If municipalities are discouraged from making land use decisions for fear of creating a right of compensation, neighborhoods will suffer.

We have been working for 15 years on issues related to neighborhood preservation. This Initiative will seriously impair our future efforts. Don't let outsiders hurt our neighborhoods. Eminent Domain can be handled next year in the Legislature as a SEPARATE issue.

Vote NO on the Private Property Rights Protection Act.

B. Paul Barnes, President, Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix, Phoenix	Patty Prince, V.P., Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix, Phoenix
Paid for by "B. Paul Barnes"