Reject assault on property rights

Wisconsin State Journal editorial
September 21, 2006

When the Dane County Board tonight considers a plan to revoke landowners' rights to build homes on small lots near shorelines, its members should take a whiff.

Both the plan and the process stink.

Proponents of this change to the county's shoreland zoning law have overreached the bounds of good government in two malodorous ways. First, they stretched very local concerns about three lots near the UW Arboretum into countywide development vs. environment issues. Second, they tried to ram their solution through fast enough to stop the Arboretum landowner from acting on permits already issued.

The result is an attempt to reduce the private property rights of landowners and to circumvent the limits that ought to keep the people in charge of government rather than the other way around.

At stake is how the county handles homebuilding on small lots in shoreland areas. The plan to be considered tonight would prohibit construction on any lot less than 7,500 square feet in area or 50 feet in width. It would require multiple small lots under the same ownership to be combined into larger lots.

The change is estimated to affect 300 landowners who hold 900 lots, and maybe more depending on what qualifies as a shoreland area.

All of these landowners would see their property values plummet because of the new restrictions.

Behind the proposal is an attempt to block a property owner from building two homes and renovating a third near the Arboretum. Some neighbors are up in arms that the construction and new homes might damage the sensitive area. However, the landowner went through the county's building permit process and was issued permits. Neighbors have appealed.

Because the law so far has been on the landowners' side, the neighbors hope to stop him by getting the law changed, following the unfair strategy: When you can't win by the rules, change the rules.

At the County Board, the Arboretum fuss merged with an interest in protecting our lakes. The State Journal editorial board has made the health of the lakes one of our priorities. We have been proud to support tighter mercury regulations, limits on phosphorous lawn fertilizer, manure disposal regulations and more.

But in each of those cases, evidence demonstrated that the proposal addressed an important lake quality problem. In this case, similar evidence is lacking.

Alternatives to the proposed changes exist. In the Arboretum area, residents have their appeal process. Countywide, the regulation of small lots near shorelines may deserve study, but with far more public input than the current ramrod process allowed.

For those reasons the County Board should reject the proposed shoreland zoning changes.