THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, March 29, 1995 TAG: 9503290441
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: NORTH CAROLINA
SOURCE: BY BETTY MITCHELL GRAY, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RALEIGH LENGTH: Medium: 86 lines
Republican lawmakers who want to rein-in big government fired their latest salvo Tuesday - taking aim again at governmental regulations.
A New Bern mortgage banker introduced a measure in the House of Representatives that would give landowners greater protection from governmental regulations that restrict how they can use their property.
One legal expert said the bill, if approved, could have far-reaching implications for coastal development and regulations.
Under the bill, sponsored by Rep. John M. Nichols, a Craven County Republican, state and local governments would have to compensate landowners if new land-use rules reduce the value of their land.
``This bill in itself will cut down dramatically on the number of rules and regulations that have been passed flippantly,'' Nichols said. ``A lot of people agree that some of these regulatory agencies have gone too far.''
Nichols said his bill is not intended to hurt the environment but simply to curb the growing number of administrative rules and regulations promulgated by state boards and commissions that hinder private-property rights.
``It's time for people who were elected by the taxpayers to take control again,'' he said. ``It's time the elected officials in this state take responsibility back for rules and regulations . . . that have the effect of law.
``The taxpayer has taken about all that he can take,'' he said. ``Everybody is concerned about environmental issues and I am, too. But people still have to live here.''
Nichols' bill, known as the Property Rights Act, was referred to the House Health and Environment Committee, which Nichols chairs.
About 75 House members have joined Nichols in supporting the measure, Nichols said, including most members of the Albemarle-area delegation. Among those who have signed the bill are Reps. William T. Culpepper III, D-Chowan; Zeno Edwards, R-Beaufort; L.W. Locke, D-Halifax, and Jean R. Preston, R-Carteret.
Nichols' bill defines land-use regulations that reduce the value of privately owned land by any amount as the constitutional equivalent of a ``taking.''
And the bill requires state and local governments that enact such regulations to compensate landowners for such ``takings'' - much the way the state must compensate landowners when it uses private land for road construction.
But although the bill requires governments to compensate landowners for drops in property values, it does not include money to help with those acquisitions - a move Nichols said will cause most boards and commissions to think carefully before enacting new regulations.
Lobbyists for businesses and home-construction groups praised the measure.
But the lobbyist for the state chapter of the Sierra Club said the bill ``is the most radical . . . I have seen in 15 years.''
``The effect of Rep. Nichols' bill is to shut down all local land-use regulations and environmental laws,'' said Bill Holman. ``This bill would effectively repeal (the Coastal Area Management Act) and other environmental laws.''
North Carolina is just the latest entry into the property rights debate.
Similar property rights measures are pending in 15 state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver.
``There's a very anti-regulatory mood being espoused by some of the country's and the state's leaders,'' said Walter Clark, legal specialist with North Carolina Sea Grant in Raleigh. ``And there's a mood of entrenchment among the regulatory community.''
Clark said Nichols' bill, if it becomes law, would have limited effects on long-standing coastal regulations, but it could affect the way coastal regulators deal with set-back requirements for oceanfront property.
And it could have a ``chilling effect'' on new coastal regulations, he said.
Unlike some ``takings'' measures being debated in other states, Nichols' bill sets no threshold for the loss of property value that would trigger compensation, a part of the bill that troubles one of the state's top environmental officials.
While Nichols' bill requires governments to compensation landowners if new regulations have any adverse effects on property values, many similar measures set a percentage of loss in property value before compensation is required.
Nichols said he would consider amending the bill to include a threshold of up to about 30 percent of a property's value if more legislators would then support the measure.
``I have no question that the bill will go through the House and I feel very comfortable that some version will pass the Senate,'' he said. by CNB