concluding proposed amendment requiring full compensation be paid to owner when government restricts use of private real estate in certain circumstances would substantially affect Legislature's power to enact legislation establishing standards and criteria for land use regulation, Legislature's constitutional duty to regulate land use to protect natural resources and scenic beauty, multiple functions of the executive branch, and more than one level of government
How later courts described this case
- concluding proposed amendment requiring full compensation be paid to owner when government restricts use of private real estate in certain circumstances would substantially affect Legislature's power to enact legislation establishing standards and criteria for land use regulation, Legislature's constitutional duty to regulate land use to protect natural resources and scenic beauty, multiple functions of the executive branch, and more than one level of government
- concluding proposed amendment requiring full compensation when government restricts use of private real estate in certain circumstances would substantially affect Legislature's power to enact legislation establishing standards and criteria for land use regulation, Legislature's constitutional duty to protect natural resources and scenic beauty, multiple functions of the executive branch, and more than one level of government
- observing that an initiative which combines revenue limitation or methods of revenue raising and other subjects must comply with the single-subject requirement
- failure to define “owner,” “common law nuisance,” and “in fairness” in the summary, even though those terms were properly replicated from and also undefined in the text of the proposed amendment, caused the amendment to be stricken from ballot
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GRIMES, Justice,
concurring in result only.
I concur in the conclusion that each of the three initiative petitions violates the single-subject rule. However, if the initiative petitions were otherwise valid, I cannot agree that the ballot titles and summaries are misleading. The summaries are only ambiguous because the amendments which they purport to describe are ambiguous.