Two major ballot initiatives on growth management

Two major ballot initiatives on growth management were defeated by voters in the November elections. In Arizona, the Sierra Club launched Proposition 202, which would have mandated that all cities, towns, and counties adopt voter-approved growth plans within two years. The initiative would also have required urban areas to create growth boundaries. Opponents of the plan, led by the real estate industry, argued that the plan would hurt the economy. The initiative went down by more than a two-to-one margin. Amendment 24 in Colorado was defeated by a similar ratio. The amendment would have given voters more in- fluence on growth decisions than in any other state, forcing cities and counties to submit growth plans for public approval on an annual basis. A $6 million public relations campaign by opponents — the costliest ever on a Colorado ballot initiative — eroded popular support for the proposal. Proponents pledged to keep pressure on the state legislature to enact growth legislation. If that fails, the amendment may be on the ballot again in two years. Growth boundaries in Oregon may be in jeopardy after voters approved a measure that could force local government to compensate land owners when regulations reduce the value of their property. The measure could potentially cost governments $5.4 billion annually, and opponents point out that it is worded so ambiguously that it will be tied up in courts for years. On December 7, a circuit court judge blocked passage of the measure while he considers its constitutionality. Ballot measures to fund open space protection were more popular with voters nationwide. The Trust for Public Land, a national nonprofit group, reports that 82 percent of the open space referenda passed, providing $6.9 billion in new funding for land conservation. Most of this money comes from tax increases approved by voters.