Land-use decisions should remain local

THE ISSUE The U.S. House has passed a bill to limit the power of local officials to take or restrict the use of land.

AS Hawaii County officials work on a policy to sensibly manage growth on the Big Island, legislation shaped thousands of miles from its shores could nullify local control of land-use decisions.

Before decamping for its election recess, the Republican-led House approved a bill that would change land-use regulations across the nation by allowing property owners and developers to contest county and state decisions directly to federal court, bypassing state courts where community issues would be given consideration.

Cities and counties could face costly legal battles just to enforce their own zoning, environmental and planning rules, much like those the Big Island is charting to avoid haphazard development that lacks necessary roads, schools, sewer lines, and fire and police protection.

The measure also could force local governments to pay landowners and developers if zoning rules restrict or reduce the scope of a project. By defining land-use regulations as a "taking" of property by the government, the bill would trigger a constitutional requirement for just compensation. It would set aside the Supreme Court interpretations that claims first be exhausted in state and local courts, leaving federal courts to impose a ruling without regard to state or local interests.

The bill was spurred by the high court's decision last year that governments, under eminent domain, can take private property and hand it to private developers if government believes the community will benefit.

However, the House measure exceeds the need to curb potential government abuses and removes the ability of local governments to establish reasonable planning benchmarks. In essence, a federal judge could dictate the character of a town.

The bill, which passed on a 231-181 vote (Rep. Neil Abercrombie voted no; Rep. Ed Case did not vote), has been sent to the Senate where its prospects are uncertain. But its provisions could be attached to a Senate version of a House-passed bill to deny federal funds to communities that use eminent domain.

The bill would improperly insert the federal government into local decision-making. It should be rejected.