Fair Payment for Public Benefit Act
Description of the Initiative
Under current law the County can enact land use restrictions that significantly and adversely impact property value, yet owe the impacted property owners nothing. In 2003, during the Stream Setback Ordinance hearings, the Board of Supervisors publicly affirmed its long standing policy that property owners are not owed any compensation for regulatory impacts unless a legal "taking" occurs, which has been interpreted by some courts as a taking of all economic value. The County position has been that if any economic value remains in an impacted property, then no taking has occurred and no compensation is due the property owner.
- Text of the initiative
- Text of the initiative - .pdf version
- Synopsis of the initiative
- YES ON A car sign (.pdf)
- YES ON A and Z car sign (.pdf)
- 9-111 Report (pdf file - 1 Mb)
- 9-111 Report rebuttal
- Sierra Club position and NVLSA’s response
- Loose Cannons
- Govern Responsibly
- Collateral Damage
- Q&A
- Q&A - .pdf version
- Measure A Encourages Compromise
- Statewide "Protect Our Homes" initiative
- Measure A Ballot Arguments
- 66 Reasons to vote YES on Measure A
This policy means that even if 90% or more of the value of a property is taken through new land use restrictions, no compensation is due. This policy is unfair to property owners, and should be changed. Individual property owners should not be forced to disproportionately bear the costs and burdens of securing public benefits. If land use restrictions are enacted to secure some public benefit, then the cost of securing it should be apportioned fairly among those who benefit.
The Fair Payment for Public Benefit Act is a voter initiative that provides that individual property owners suffering significant decrease in property value caused by new land use restrictions either be fairly compensated for their loss or be entitled to have the new restrictions removed. It will be on the June 2006 ballot as Measure A.
Measure A does not change the Board’s authority to enact new restrictions. It merely ensures that the Board will consider the costs of its actions and apportion those costs fairly.
Measure A is not retroactive beyond its petition filing date. It does not change any zoning or allow any new uses. It does not change any existing land use regulations, nor does it require any compensation for losses caused by existing land use restrictions. It provides property owners protection only from new restrictions imposed after the petition filing date.
Whenever new land use restrictions have been enacted in the last few decades, certain Napa County families have been forced to bear huge financial and social costs for the benefit of the rest of us. The creation of our Agricultural Preserve with its ever-increasing minimum parcel size has brought us significant benefits in terms of slow growth and open space, but it has cost property owners their right to sell off portions of their property to pay for their medical care or to finance their retirement. Our development restrictions have deprived them of their right to provide a place for their adult children to live on the family property. And unless they own hundreds of acres, they can’t even divide their property among their children when they die. They have borne the entire cost of preserving a rural county for all of us. We cannot turn the clock back and undo that damage, but we can play fair and pay our own way from now on. The Fair Payment for Public Benefit Act will ensure that we do.