PICABO, Idaho — Cheeks chapped, patience thinned, Katie Breckenridge had no trouble making up her mind about an Idaho ballot measure that would make the government pay property owners if zoning rules reduce the value of their land.
“Do I think this is almost swinging the pendulum back too far in the other direction? I do,” said Ms. Breckenridge, 61, a rancher just in from tending to cattle and quarter horses. “But do I think we’ve got to do something to bring the balance back to property rights? I do, and I’m going to vote for it.”
More than a year after Suzette Kelo and several of her neighbors in New London, Conn., lost their battle against eminent domain in the United States Supreme Court, the backlash against the ruling has made property rights one of the most closely watched ballot issues nationwide.
Already, 30 state legislatures have enacted restrictions on eminent domain in response to the court ruling. Now voters here and in 11 other states will consider property rights measures in November, making it the election’s most prevalent ballot issue.
Most of the measures would limit eminent domain to some degree, while others, in Western states, would go further, imposing new restrictions on government’s ability to enforce zoning laws, even if those laws are intended to reduce sprawl and improve safety.
In the Kelo case, the Supreme Court ruled that government could transfer private land from one owner to another for the sake of economic development. But the court made a point of saying states were free to change their laws.
Even opponents of the ballot measures concede that support for them appears strong in public opinion polls. They predict years of court fights if the measures pass.
“This thing is an abomination, the way it’s written, the way it’s being sold,” Nils Ribi, a City Council member in nearby Sun Valley who opposes the Idaho measure.
Supporters of the ballot efforts in the West — often called “Kelo-plus” — say they want to stop so-called regulatory takings, the idea that government effectively takes private property when zoning laws limit how it can be used.
Opponents say the regulatory-takings initiatives are essentially a ruse, that they are trying to exploit anger over the Kelo decision and eminent domain to roll back zoning regulations that are critical to controlling growth, protecting the environment and preserving property values.
The more far-reaching proposals in the West — in Idaho, Arizona, California and Washington State — are citizens’ initiatives supported by signature petitions, and they are often supported financially and logistically by national libertarian groups.
This House Is My Home, a group based in Boise that is sponsoring the Idaho measure, Proposition 2, is among groups in several states that have received strong financial help from Fund for Democracy, headed by Howard S. Rich, the New York real estate investor who is chairman of the libertarian group Americans for Limited Government. As of late June, Fund for Democracy had given at least $237,000 to This House Is My Home, about two-thirds of the money raised by the group. The next filing deadline is Oct. 10.
“We are essentially a ‘networking station’ that brings together grass-roots activists, donors and community leaders who share a common interest,” John Tillman, president of Americans for Limited Government, said in an e-mail message. “In this case, that common interest is in restoring property rights for the average citizen.”
Affluent outsiders have been drawn to Idaho in recent decades, lured by technology jobs, mountain recreation and abundant sunshine. Boise, the capital, has boomed, as has Sun Valley, where newcomers from California build second homes not far from ranchers who herd sheep over the Sawtooth Mountains. About two-thirds of Idaho land is under federal control, and frustration runs deep in rural areas with newcomers who, after buying their piece of paradise, try to restrict land use further in the name of preservation and environmentalism.
“Katie’s family, my family, they did this great job of developing this country,” said Rob Struthers, 59, Ms. Breckenridge’s partner in life and work. “Now all these people come in and say, ‘Wow, what a beautiful place.’ But they don’t trust us to keep it that way. Instead of rewarding us, they’re penalizing us.”
In an era of sun-splashed subdivisions, land here can be a farmer’s greatest asset. Mr. Ribi, the councilman, expressed some sympathy for farmers who have been “down-zoned” under a new county plan.
But Mr. Ribi, a venture capitalist, is trying to galvanize opposition to the initiative by tapping the same independent streak that may make some anti-government Idahoans interested in the measure.
“These are guys on the right wing who always want local control and all of a sudden they’re saying let’s let these guys from Washington, D.C., and outside think tanks have control,” Mr. Ribi said. “That’s why I think we’ve lost perspective.”
If the Supreme Court ruling in the Connecticut case inflamed passions for property rights, the initiatives in the Western states are more directly rooted in events in Oregon. In 2004, Oregon voters passed a measure that allowed property owners to file claims that zoning restrictions had hurt their property value. That law, known as Measure 37, requires government to either pay for the lost value or waive the zoning rules if an owner makes a successful claim.
About 2,400 claims totaling more than $5.6 billion have been filed since the measure was upheld in court this spring, according to the Oregon Department of Land and Conservation Development. “Not a penny” has been paid to property owners, said Sheila A. Martin, director of the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies at Portland State University. Local governments, lacking money to pay, have simply waived the zoning rules.
But while Measure 37 grew out of frustration with Oregon’s famously strict zoning rules, Idaho does not have such comprehensive restrictions. Even if some rural landowners are frustrated with new zoning rules, said Stephanie Witt, director of the Center for Public Policy at Boise State University, “It’s not like people are rebelling against this really restrictive growth management law.”
The Castle Coalition, a property rights group that has fought for eminent domain overhauls, does not list a single “eminent domain abuse” case in Idaho on its Web site. It calls Idaho “one of the best states in the country for protecting owners from eminent domain abuse.”
John Eaton, government affairs director for the Idaho Association of Realtors, said the initiative “blows up the stability that we have right now.”
“We’re the property rights people but we’re not going to support this,” he said. “This is crazy.”
Ms. Breckenridge, dusty boots on the mat by the door, was not ready to predict how the vote might go up in swank Sun Valley or down in urban Boise. Closer to home, however, she was confident.
“Everybody that’s connected to the land is going to vote for it,” she said, “because there’s an anger, a rising anger.”