¶ 7 In contrast to McLoughlin’s suggestion, the subsection affirmatively grants property owners the ability to prevent counties from initiating downzoning of the owners’ property, see § 11-829(F) (county-initiated downzoning prohibited “without the express written consent of the property owner”), thereby effectively delegating to those property owners the downzoning authority that formerly reposed in counties. However, “[i]t is a well established theory that a legislature may not delegate its authority to private persons over whom the legislature has no supervision or control.” Industrial Comm’n v. C & D Pipeline, Inc., 125 Ariz. 64, 66, 607 P.2d 383, 385 (App. 1979); see Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U.S. 116, 122, 49 S.Ct. 50, 52, 73 L.Ed. 210, 214 (1928) (<HOLDING>); People ex rel. Chicago Dryer Co. v. City of
holding that landowner who digs in such a way as to disturb natural state of neighboring land is strictly liable holding a landowner not liable for an accident on a country road caused by a tree which fell from the landowners property holding unconstitutional a zoning law that purported to give landowners who were not bound by any official duty but wejre free to withhold consent for selfish reasons or arbitrarily and could subject a neighboring landowner to their will or caprice authority to prevent a particular use on a neighbors land holding that a landowner could recover for placement of a median strip that could not have occurred but for the taking of the landowners property because the inquiry is how much has the particular public improvement decreased the fair market value of the property taking into consideration the use for which the land was taken and all the reasonably probable effects of its devotion to that use holding consent was given involuntarily when a reasonable person would not have felt they had the choice to withhold consent to search