Amendment 74 is one of the most dangerous ballot measures we have seen in Colorado for a long time. It claims to help property owners. In fact, it will only help make lawyers very wealthy at the expense of taxpayers.

I have nothing against lawyers — I am one after all — but I do have concerns about the future of our state when a single industry bankrolls a constitutional amendment to quash public safety protections while cynically hiding behind farmers and libertarian ideals. Amendment 74 was designed and paid for by oil and gas companies but its effects go much further than just that industry.

If approved by voters, Amendment 74 will radically upend decades of settled law by requiring taxpayer remuneration if any government decision reduces anyone’s property value by any amount. Every property-related decision made by a local government or the state will immediately be subject to a lawsuit, often by parties on both sides of an issue.

Either zoning will cease to exist or taxpayers will be on the hook for millions, or even billions, of dollars.

Lawyers will be very busy. Take, for instance, building height restrictions. If a developer wants to build something taller than the current local ordinance allows, that company will hire a lawyer to sue the city, claiming a reduction in property value, and will likely succeed.

But wait, it gets better.

Neighbors who like the existing height restriction will also hire a lawyer to sue the city because taller buildings affect their views of the mountains and reduce their property values. Those neighbors will also succeed. Caught in the middle, and paying damages to both the developer and the neighbors (with a healthy cut to the lawyers involved), will be taxpayers.

In reality, Amendment 74 will create a legal free-for-all. Who wants a liquor store next to a school or a chemical plant next to a hospital? If a developer does and the city says no, prepare for a lawsuit. Will complying with a noise ordinance cost a developer any money? A county must either not enforce its ordinance or lose a lawsuit.

Most Coloradans agree our transportation infrastructure is inadequate. Be prepared to wait even longer for a fix while courts sort out all of the lawsuits. Take a decision to widen a road from two lanes into four lanes close to a residential neighborhood. One homeowner can claim the construction will reduce his property value. Another could claim any delay continues rush hour gridlock and therefore reduces her property value. Both can sue under Amendment 74.

Only two other states have approved a measure similar to Amendment 74 and we should take note of the results. Oregon reported over 7,000 claims filed against the state totaling $19.5 billion after passage of its law; the voters called a mulligan and repealed it just three years later.

Arizona passed a much more narrow version of Amendment 74 to quickly see property owners increasingly fighting other property owners in court. Most of its towns now routinely grant zoning waivers as a way to avoid the inevitable lawsuits.

In both of those states, several exceptions were built into the law including some that account for public health and safety. Amendment 74 dispenses with even those protections. Imagine building something that can explode next to a playground and you get the idea of what will happen if Amendment 74 passes.

The United States Constitution, the Colorado Constitution, and our state laws already protect property rights. They strike a balance between competing property owners and already compensate owners for any governmental takings. Amendment 74 is a radical experiment to see what happens when safety precautions and zoning simply do not exist. Hopefully Colorado voters will see through this dangerous effort and vote no.

Mike Foote is an attorney and represents House District 12, which encompasses Louisville, Lafayette and south and eastern Longmont.