MAKING LOCAL DECISIONS A FEDERAL CASE PROPOSAL WOULD ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO BYPASS ZONING, USE REGULATIONS.

Byline: Chris McKenzie 

With much of the public's attention focused on presidential politics, the U.S. House of Representatives is quietly considering legislation that will give property developers a formidable weapon when seeking local approval for development projects. Although the bill purports to protect property rights, the ``Private Property Rights Implementation Act'' is in fact an all-out assault on local control and local taxpayers.

Current law encourages developers to work with local governments to bring new projects to fruition. This time-tested process works because both parties have significant interest at stake: Developers want a reasonable return from their investment and local residents want to protect the long-term quality of life in their community.

Generally, local communities welcome well-planned growth. New revenue sources and other benefits assure that the local government can improve the level of service it provides to its citizens. But poorly planned development can hurt local communities by causing traffic snarls, crowded schools, and over-extended police and fire services.

Local governments usually attempt to strike a balance between the costs and benefits of development. At all points during the planning process, developers have ample opportunity to fully participate in planning sessions and public meetings.

If, at the end of the process, developers still feel that their concerns have not been adequately addressed, they can seek redress in state court. Indeed, the development community has been quite effective in sponsoring legislative efforts - such as the California Permit Streamlining Act - to assure that they have a full and fair opportunity to remedy perceived ills.

The proposed legislation in Congress would change the existing balances of a sensible system. The bill would make a federal case - literally - out of every planning and zoning dispute. Big project developers would be allowed to circumvent local planning processes and proceed quickly into federal court whenever they didn't like a decision by a planning commission or other local government body.

Why is this so wrong? Because local hearings are where ordinary citizens can voice their concerns about proposals that affect their community and quality of life. Sending every land use or zoning dispute into a distant federal court means only those who can afford lawyers are heard.

Most people recognize that reasonable restrictions actually increase property values. Communities adopt plans to accommodate growth in a manner that does not destroy community character. Zoning ensures that there won't be a topless bar next to a school or a landfill in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

The so-called property rights bill turns this process on its head by attempting an unwarranted extension of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which states, ``nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'' Instead of attempting to work out solutions with local governments, the bill creates an incentive for big project developers to claim that a ``taking'' has occurred simply on their belief that local land use and environmental rules have impinged on their profits.

You don't have to look very far to see what its impact would be in California. Such a result would endanger ``smart growth'' planning efforts across the state. Indeed, many of the most important land use decisions are made on the urban fringe, as small cities and unincorporated areas try to cope with sprawl. Those are the very communities that can least afford a federal court fight and would feel most pressured to roll over for every developer who challenged them.

Even U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist - who is very sympathetic to the interest of landowners - stated in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde that the bill would ``alter deeply-ingrained federalism principles'' and ``adversely affect the administration of justice and delay the resolution of property rights claims.''

It's ironic that a Congress that talks about reducing a bloated federal bureaucracy and returning control to state and local levels is even considering a measure that is directly aimed at doing just the opposite. By removing control from the people, the Property Rights Implementation Act of 1999 actually takes away the fundamental right of citizens and local governments to resolve land use and zoning issues at the local level.

If the bill becomes law, ``making a federal case out of it'' could become all too routine.