Shall the above-entitled measure [see text] proposed by Proposition Two be approved?[1] | ||||||||||
| Results | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Idaho Proposition 2 was a 2006 ballot initiative in the state of Idaho, U.S. that aimed to force government to reimburse property owners whose property value is decreased as a result of government regulation.
The initiative, which is similar to the controversial Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004), was defeated.[2]
The long title of the proposition states:
AN INITIATIVE RELATING TO EMINENT DOMAIN; AMENDING SECTION 7 701, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE LIMITATIONS ON EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE PARTIES, AND FOR URBAN RENEWAL OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; AND PROVIDE FOR FURTHER JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN; ADDING A NEW SECTION 7-701A TO PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS RELATING TO HIGHEST AND BEST USE, FAIR MARKET VALUE, JUST COMPENSATION, AND LAND USE LAW; AND AMENDING CHAPTER 80, TITLE 67, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR JUST COMPENSATION WHEN A REGULATORY ACTION REDUCES FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AND TO PROVIDE JUST COMPENSATION TO A CONDEMNEE.
| County | Yes | Yes % | No | No % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ada | 29,002 | 24.68% | 88,493 | 75.32% |
| Adams | 387 | 23.08% | 1,290 | 76.92% |
| Bannock | 4,298 | 17.70% | 19,991 | 82.30% |
| Bear Lake | 752 | 33.59% | 1,487 | 66.41% |
| Benewah | 633 | 22.17% | 2,222 | 77.83% |
| Bingham | 2,278 | 17.87% | 10,473 | 82.13% |
| Blaine | 1,394 | 19.19% | 5,870 | 80.81% |
| Boise | 851 | 29.88% | 1,997 | 70.12% |
| Bonner | 3,505 | 25.47% | 10,258 | 74.53% |
| Bonneville | 5,505 | 18.24% | 24,674 | 81.76% |
| Boundary | 877 | 27.82% | 2,275 | 72.18% |
| Butte | 258 | 23.16% | 856 | 76.84% |
| Camas | 70 | 15.59% | 379 | 84.41% |
| Canyon | 11,672 | 27.80% | 30,320 | 72.70% |
| Caribou | 371 | 14.75% | 2,145 | 85.25% |
| Cassia | 1,274 | 22.40% | 4,413 | 77.60% |
| Clark | 68 | 20.30% | 267 | 79.70% |
| Clearwater | 827 | 28.40% | 2,085 | 71.60% |
| Custer | 585 | 30.92% | 1,307 | 69.08% |
| Elmore | 1,583 | 27.64% | 4,026 | 72.36% |
| Franklin | 1,402 | 36.76% | 2,412 | 63.24% |
| Fremont | 788 | 18.08% | 3,570 | 81.92% |
| Gem | 1,597 | 28.45% | 4,016 | 71.55% |
| Gooding | 778 | 18.93% | 3,332 | 81.07% |
| Idaho | 2,056 | 32.60% | 4,250 | 67.40% |
| Jefferson | 1,420 | 19.34% | 5,921 | 80.66% |
| Jerome | 921 | 19.64% | 3,869 | 80.36% |
| Kootenai | 9,873 | 26.74% | 27,051 | 73.26% |
| Latah | 2,793 | 23.69% | 8,999 | 76.31% |
| Lemhi | 807 | 26.01% | 2,296 | 73.99% |
| Lewis | 413 | 30.28% | 951 | 69.72% |
| Lincoln | 298 | 20.82% | 1,133 | 79.18% |
| Madison | 1,331 | 16.68% | 6,650 | 83.32% |
| Minidoka | 1,038 | 20.39% | 4,053 | 79.61% |
| Nez Perce | 3,438 | 29.08% | 8,384 | 70.92% |
| Oneida | 448 | 29.97% | 1,047 | 70.03% |
| Owyhee | 994 | 36.52% | 1,728 | 63.48% |
| Payette | 1,883 | 32.79% | 3,860 | 67.21% |
| Power | 327 | 15.63% | 1,765 | 84.37% |
| Shoshone | 1,034 | 27.90% | 2,672 | 72.10% |
| Teton | 643 | 21.02% | 2,416 | 78.98% |
| Twin Falls | 3,532 | 18.47% | 15,594 | 81.53% |
| Valley | 846 | 21.92% | 3,014 | 78.08% |
| Washington | 973 | 29.09% | 2,372 | 70.91% |
Source: Idaho Secretary of State
 | This article relating to urban planning is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
 | This Idaho-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
