Its difficult to imagine in the year 2014 that there are places within the state of Arizona where nobody will come to help you if you have an emergency. There are places where it isnt anybodys job to show up if your house catches fire, if you get into a serious car accident, or your child drowns in a backyard pool. While it may be painful to accept, the current economic climate has forced our communities to come to the realization that we simply cannot afford to answer every call for help. Organizations at the federal, state, and local level are adjusting their operations accordingly and our citizens must realize that there are repercussions to where they chose to live, work, and play. The collapse of property values, legislative action, voter initiatives, and rising costs of doing business have created a perfect storm which caused the reduction of services in almost all communities. In some cases, the impact has been so significant that fire departments and other emergency responders have been forced to file bankruptcy or simply close their doors and cease operations altogether. In one of the most tragic and tangible examples of these challenges, the Yarnell Fire District (clinging to a fiscal cliff and crushed against weight of the mil rate cap) may have to decrease or eliminate services because of the property value loss associated with the fire that cost nineteen firefighters their lives. In such a daunting environment, it would seem logical to at least attempt to mitigate any further deterioration of the resources available to citizens suffering an emergency. With that concept in mind, many individuals living in areas without adequate emergency services protection have sought out options and providers in an effort to mitigate their risks and potential loss. Given the realities outlined above, such requests seemed heaven sent to agencies battling the reduction of services and constantly eroding budgets. By seeking annexation rather than contracted services, these individuals have demonstrated their level of commitment to providers and the fact that they are willing to help pay for the infrastructure needed to provide an acceptable level of service. And therein lies the problem; some of these citizens have some “not so secret admirers.” Throughout Arizona, people have purchased homes and property outside the boundaries of incorporated cities and towns for a variety of reasons. Some wish to own livestock, some dont care for the city taxes, and some simply wish to embody the “wild west” spirit that comes from setting their own rules and avoiding city codes and ordinances. In many cases, these individuals purchased their homes in these “census designated areas” specifically to avoid the rules and regulations of an “incorporated place”; assuming that in Arizona especially, these ideals and individual property rights would be inviolable. However, an incorporated area must grow to survive and as such, these developed properties become attractive targets to government employees trying to grow municipal boundaries and pad their resumes. In some cases, bureaucrats have battled for decades in an effort to bring these neighborhoods into the fold and under the rules of the municipal staff (Shepherd pun intended). One of these communities fought these repeated annexations and then had the unmitigated gall to seek out services from another provider. This neighborhood had refused to “date” a city for more than twenty years and now wanted to consider “dating” a special taxing district. What resulted from this insult was an odd mixture of Eminent Domain meets Stalker Endorsement legislation, or House Bill 2152. While the bill may seem like a fairly benign initiative from a legislative perspective, those acquainted with the objective of the sponsoring agencies are far too familiar with the actual intent behind the Title 48 Amendment. Contrary to the ideals espoused by our forefathers and outlined in our constitution, a few employees in two Arizona cities would like their current professional desires to forever take precedence over the personal property rights of Arizona citizens who do not live within an incorporated city or town. They wish to create a hierarchy of municipalities and political subdivisions within the state and assert a new and perverted form of eminent domain that should have all property rights and constitution advocates spinning in their chairs. HB2152 provides some measure of structure and authority to imaginary lines, creating a pathway that Rocinante might follow having lost his rider. Planning areas of incorporated cities or towns, read; “places we may want to bring into our city or town at some time in the future”, can be drawn without limit or restriction and without regard to the actions or plans of other political subdivisions or the wants and desires of the citizens living within these notional boundaries. In fact, residents within these speculative zones may have no idea that they are being considered potential future residents of “City X” and have no right to prevent themselves from being included in this scheme; yet HB2152 will bind them and their property to the will of the employees of this incorporated area without a vote or a voice. “City X” is under no obligation to provide any service, to move with any speed to bring this property out of this “census Purgatory”, or to ever act to make these individuals full citizens of their municipality. Being included in these imaginary lines (planning areas) takes away rights from the property owner if HB2152 passes; essentially making property inherently less valuable than property not encumbered by these imaginary lines. If property has been rendered less valuable then it should be held that the property has been “damaged” by being included in these planning areas. Section 17 of Article II of the Arizona Constitution states that; “No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having first been made”; yet the municipality is apparently under no obligation to compensate property owners for this damage. With these apparent constitutional conflicts, it seemed as if HB2152 would never receive an actual floor vote; especially given the fact that it was assigned to both the Government and Rules Committees in the House of Representatives.The language of this bill also appears to directly contradict and violate Article XIII Section 7 of the Arizona Constitution that guarantees equal protection, status, and standing to political subdivisions and provides no additional value to the specific system of governance a collection of citizens has decided to utilize in meeting their collective needs. HB2152 directly adds power and authority to one form of government over another and advocates the use of that power by individuals who are not even elected officials of the incorporated city or town. Essentially, HB2152 compels the Arizona Senate and House of Representatives to share their authority over political subdivisions with the part time junior city planner from Winkelman. Yet, somehow, this bill continues to move forward and if passed, creates a group of “second class citizens”; who own property, but have no right to permanently protect that property without the permission of cities they dont live in. Because they are not residents of that city (or members of the electorate), they are barred from having a voice in the actions of that incorporated area or from being qualified to run for political office in the jurisdiction that now has substantial authority over their property. How this ability does not violate Sections 4, 8, 13, 17, and 25 of Article II, Section 2 and 15 of Article VII, Section 15 of Article XIV, and at least the spirit of Section 2 of Article XXVII of the Arizona Constitution may best be determined by the judicial system, but the dedication of financial resources to litigious actions given the current economic climate seems less than sage. House Bill 2152 is NOT a benign amendment to Title 48 as some would claim. HB2152 is actually punishment directed toward a group of citizens from a neighborhood who have voted down annexation attempts by a specific city for more than two decades. These individuals have told bureaucrats time and time again that they do not want to become part of this city despite the fact that they do appreciate some of the services the city provides. They want their community to remain as it is and enjoy the freedom that drew them to build their homes here in the first place. Because some of these citizens are not happy with their current private provider for fire protection (one truck located thirty miles away if it is not on another call) and are seeking out other options, the city wants to punish them and take property rights away from all Arizona citizens who do not live within an incorporated city or town. While we may be forced to accept the fact that we cannot adequately fund all programs, respond to all emergencies, or answer every call for help; we could in theory, at least protect against derisory actions that will make the situation worse. Or, as with so many other missed opportunities, we could cut off our nose to spite our face. We could allow private citizens who have chosen to live in “census designated areas” to make their own decisions about their property, or we could have some government bureaucrats create some imaginary lines and eradicate personal property rights. HB2152 is drawn from petty origins and childish motives and if approved, becomes the tangible example of a bad law. Please do not support House Bill 2152 and thank you for your time.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:04:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015