Court Ruling Fuels Dispute in West Over Eminent Domain

In Idaho, a measure called Proposition 2 would halt eminent-domain seizures of the kind allowed by the Supreme Court in 2005 in Kelo v. New London . That ruling upheld the right of local governments to condemn private property and then hand it over to someone else for commercial development. Since Kelo , 26 states have passed laws that ban the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.

But the Idaho initiative, as with others in the West, is about much more than just eminent domain. It would require state and local governments to compensate landowners for regulations that restrict what they can do with their land.

About three-fourths of the more than $330,000 spent to put Proposition 2 on the ballot came from groups funded by Rich, in a pattern of spending that has been repeated in many Western states.

Groups bankrolled by Rich have this year spent about $11 million in 12 states in support of measures to restrict land-use planning, cap state spending or limit judicial power, according to state campaign finance reports compiled by the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a Washington-based group that is supported by labor.

Rich was not available to comment on his spending or the goals of his property-rights groups.

John Tillman, president of one of those groups, Americans for Limited Government, declined in an e-mail to comment on the amount of Rich's spending, saying that campaign finance reports "speak for themselves." He did not dispute the $11 million figure.

Tillman did note that the Supreme Court decision in Kelo has alarmed the public, putting "everyone on notice that property rights are on shaky ground and that the time to act is now."

In some states, grass-roots opposition to land-use rules existed well before Kelo and before Rich began spending money. For the past 15 years in Washington state, the Washington Farm Bureau has fought laws that limit what some farmers can do with their land in heavily populated places such as King County, which includes Seattle.

In Oregon, which had been a national leader in land-use planning, the consequences of rolling back the rules are becoming clear. At last count, there were 3,038 claims by property owners involving more than 173,000 acres, according to a tally kept by Portland State University. Of the 2,630 claims that have been decided, 90 percent have gone in favor of landowners, with state and local governments waiving land-use rules. Most of the claims come from owners of what had been protected farm and forest land bordering fast-growing urban areas.

"The agenda behind these initiatives is to make it so expensive for local and state governments to regulate land use that they can hardly function at all," said John Echeverria, executive director of the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute.

In recent weeks, courts in Nevada and Montana have knocked some initiatives off ballots. The Nevada ruling was on technical grounds, but a state judge in Great Falls, Mont., found "a pervasive and general pattern of fraud" in the gathering of signatures for three ballot measures aimed at reining in government power.

"A number of paid out-of-state signature gatherers used bait-and-switch tactics to fraudulently induce countless Montanans to sign petitions other than the petitions they thought they were signing," wrote Judge Dirk M. Sandefur.

The ruling has been appealed to the Montana Supreme Court. Nearly all of the money for signature gatherers came from Montanans in Action, which declines to reveal its donors.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) has said that Rich is bankrolling the measures and has challenged him to debate their merits. Rich has not responded to this request nor to a similar debate offer from Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) of Oregon, where Rich's money has been instrumental in putting a spending-cap initiative on the ballot.