The next big thing in Washington politics is an old thing: “property rights.”
As reported yesterday in The News Tribune, Oregon’s new anti-growth-management law, that requires financially compensating property owners for potential losses due to zoning or land-use restrictions, has spurred interest in Washington from the usual suspects. [State might copy Oregon property rights plan]
On Friday, some of the state’s most powerful interest groups met in Olympia to discuss acting on that inspiration by running an initiative similar to Oregon’s Measure 37, either this fall or in 2006.
“The conclusion was the time was ripe for such an initiative,” said Gary Tripp of a group called Bainbridge Citizens United. “We are going to draft an initiative ASAP.”
Tripp organized the meeting, which was attended by several building groups and initiative veterans, including the Building Industry Association of Washington, the Washington State Grange and Tim Eyman.
That’s right, the BIAW and Tim Eyman.
And the Grange…? Well, I’m still not sure what to make of them, but they’re beginning to piss me off.
Not that any of this should come as a surprise. Environmentalists have been expecting a copy cat initiative, and those of us on the Eyman-watch have been wondering when Tim would abandon his dead-in-the-water performance audits initiative to pirate this potentially more lucrative issue.
But being alert and being prepared are not the same thing. Those of us who believe that rational growth management policy is absolutely necessary to maintain our region’s quality of life, must start organizing, working the media, and raising money… now. For all of Eyman’s bluster and self-aggrandizing, all it really takes to get an initiative on the ballot is half-a-million dollars worth of paid signatures. There’s a ton of money to be made by builders and others from unconstrained development, and you can be sure that they are ready to invest millions at even the hint of electoral success.
As I’ve often complained, the initiative process tends to suck all the nuance out of public policy debates, throwing extreme proposals at complex issues. But as James Vesely points out in today’s Seattle Times, this is an issue worthy of further discussion:
The required 10-year review of the growth-management practices kicked a moribund engine into life. That engine is the desire of small property owners to develop their land, if they wish. The big question is: How can we accommodate them to avert a property-rights rebellion without changing a region’s core beliefs?
Good question. And perhaps in the comment thread of this blog entry we can thrash out some answers.
Unfortunately, an initiative won’t afford voters such luxury; they’ll simply be allowed a thumbs up or down on a radical piece of anti-growth-management legislation. In 1995 voters rejected a similar Referendum No. 48 by a healthy margin, 59% to 41%. But that was the result of an intense, well-organized campaign… an effort we need to duplicate, and quickly.
Just thought I’d give you all a heads up.
Unfortunately, an initiative won’t afford voters such luxury; they’ll simply be allowed a thumbs up or down on a radical piece of property-rights legislation. In 1995 voters rejected a similar Referendum No. 48 by a healthy margin, 59% to 41%. But that was the result of an intense, well-organized campaign… an effort we need to duplicate, and quickly.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Read your Bill of Rights and explain exactly where your anti property rights stand fits in there please? I would really like to know.
So Chuck… you’re totally opposed to zoning, huh? I could buy the house next door to yours, knock it down, and turn it into a hazardous waste storage facility, or a slaughter house, and that would be okay with you?
Man… does your knee ever hit you in the chin from jerking so hard?
Comment by Goldy— 1/16/05 @ 2:26 pm
Oh, well said.
Okay, I have some questions and I’d like to know where to start looking:
#1. What is growth management? What is NOT growth management?
#2. What is wrong w/ “compensating property owners for potential losses due to zoning or land-use restrictions”? I mean, obviously allowing a factory in the middle of farmland can’t be compensated but there has to be a middle ground.
I’d like answers to these before I take a pithier position.
Josef
I am talking about someone that does something on their property with no real effect on you…no dattelite dishes, “eyesore” from not mowing the yard, that sort of thing. Prime example, there is a go cart track in Graham that was there for years all by itself, a contractor put in a housing tract and it has been hell on the owners since…
I have some friends who have property out in the middle of nowhere (Weyerhauser land outside of Carnation), and as a result of the Critical Areas Ordinance that passed last fall, they’re not able to develop on 60% of it.
They’ve had this land for years – and many landowners have had theirs even longer, with plans to retire there – and as they developed it into a small horse farm they’ve met every regulation required of them. Many of those were relatively unapplicable due to the fact that they’re King County regulations targeted more toward city than rural dwellers, but they complied.
Now, due to this ordinance, the county is saying they can’t develop a huge chunk of it, but will continue to take property taxes on all of it. I’m a staunch dem, but to me this seems grossly unfair.
I don’t have a solution; I’d just like to know what other people think we can to do have some kind of happy medium where people like this are taken into account.
The problem with the Growth Management Act is that, as usual, the democrats reached too far. The King County land grab used the GMA as justification. So, thanks to Ron Sims, those who do agree that King County went too far will hate the Growth Management Act.
The problem the GMA is creating which is still below the radar is its impact on residential suburbs. We see all these rezones to increase density, mandated by the GMA. People living in the suburbs did not move there becasue they wanted increased density, they moved there to get away from it. The traffic impacts, overcrowding of schools, etc. are all symptoms of this increased density in suburbs that were originally built as single family residential towns. Every residential suburb north, south and east of Seattle is beginning to see the effects of the GMA.
The backlash from this has not yet hit home for most people though, so I doubt that the initiative will go far. There are not enough people in rural King County to pass it, and the people in the suburbs don’t yet know what has hit them.
The 10-year review of the GMA policies, such as the Critical Areas review King County jsut went through, are a classic case of teh faoxes ransacking the henhouse. The planners responsible for these reviews were all weaned on the GMA over the last 10 years, and naturally want to expand its scope and reach. And the councils just go along because the language of the GMA doesn’t give them any latitude to ignore “best available science” with their 10 year updates.
Paul uses his friends who own rural land outside Carnation as an example: “they can’t develop a huge chunk of it, but will continue to take property taxes on all of it.”
Two questions: 1) “can’t develop” is awfully vague. Just what do they want to do that they’re not allowed to do under the GMA? 2) if the value of their land is less than it might be without development restrictions, aren’t they paying less in property taxes too?
Also, how long has the GMA been in existence?
Curious how the debate’s going to be framed.
My mom and dad subdivided ten acres in Bellevue 25 years ago at the beginmning of the big time growth. They did not make a fortune by todays standards, but invested in other real estate in E. Washington, farms, and thus secured good retirements.
I understand the issue of land held for long term and for potential investment by ordinary folks. It could be a real problem for economic security for many families in old age.
Funding the buyout of develpment rights over a long term annuity for part of the reduced value makes some sense to me.
Wonder if Piere county leaves all the land it owns in half vegetation? Bet not…..can kids play in the natural state? Goats pasture? Harvest wildflowers for summer fun?
Any building lot in King Co just went up 40 per cent. Restricting growth in Calif sent home prices sky high in good locations years ago. Where is the middle ground?
No Chuck… you wrote:
The right to hold and use private property is one of the principle tenets of Liberal Democracy, but as I was pointing out in my reply to you, there are no absolutes. For example eminent domain is a long protected power of the state.
I’d actually love to have a debate here about how far is too far with the GMA, but we need to start from the basic realistic assumption that state and local government can indeed limit land use without compensation, and that the principles behind the GMA are as Vesely said, part of our region’s “core beliefs.”
My understanding of the CMA is that no development on 60% means exactly that: you can’t mow it, clear the blackberries off (without some kind of costly permit), no walking paths, nothing. And the property tax will continue as if it’s still highest and best use. Pierce County’s version will go into effect in March. It’s a land-grab, pure and simple.
Sounds like a great case for tax abatement at least……the county has a lot of ambience wildlands and taxes them too. Bit strange.
Brush cover with no potential for ANY development, low value. No use is quite a concept when it comes to land.
I think some of the city dwellers have lost track of the fact that 80 per cent of the state is quite empty of anything…..lots of open space just a few miles away. Miles of it in E Washinton.
Comment by Rae— 1/16/05 @ 4:36 pm
That is precisely why so many people are upset about the Critical Areas Ordinance. If the government wants land to remain in the wilderness state, then they should purchase it from its owners at a fair price. We have done fine for many decades with government owned wilderness areas. Now the government wants to take away long standing development and usage rights from private property owners.
Referendum 48 failed by a healthy margin 10 years ago, back when government was mainly doing routine zoning, rather than wholesale expropriations of property rights. I think the climate is much different these days, as well as public perception. The anti-property rights crowd in control in King and Pierce Counties has demonstrated its total avarice and lack of self-restraint. People are not going to expect much help from the state legislature. There is a 50-50 chance they won’t expect much help from the governor, even in a few months from now.
So I predict that the Oregon measure will be copied and put on the Washington ballot this fall. I think the BIAW, Grange, Farm Bureau and similar groups will sponsor it. Tim Eyman will be allowed the privilege of endorsing it, and maybe making a few tens of thousands of dollars from the operation, but will not be allowed to take front and center stage. I would say there is an excellent chance of passage.
Eminent domain is taking for specific public purpose, and money for the taking.
No money for the taking seems one of the issues.
They would nt need eyman for anything……Grange just passed our new primary.
Interesting issue. Even the most hard core urban greenies- like myself – have an umderstanding of ordinary folks suffering very big finantila loss over long term in this system.
What about the occupation of small scale farming?
Zoning is one thing. This seems very different. Imagine, vast civil disbedience, cutting the blackberry vines en masse…..very NW!!!! !!!!
According to this article:
The actual description on the KC web site is here.
From the pdf located on that page, line 338:
In other words, that’s blocking fifty to sixty-five percent of the lot size.
I hope the comment about paying fewer taxes because of the resulting depreciation of the property was a joke. How would YOU like it if someone said “Hey, your property is worth dramatically less, but at least you don’t have to pay as high a tax on it!”
According to this article:
The actual description on the KC web site is here.
From the pdf located on that page, line 338:
In other words, that’s blocking fifty to sixty-five percent of the lot size.
I hope the comment about paying fewer taxes because of the resulting depreciation of the property was a joke. How would YOU like it if someone said “Hey, your property is worth dramatically less, but at least you don’t have to pay as high a tax on it!”
test – my last comment was blocked for some reason…
I’m going to assume my comment is being held for approval. Goldy, if that’s not the case let me know and I’ll report.
One more comment – Can’t repeal the county ordinance by referendum. Judge just ruled that.
Yes, wait for the big time state repeal…..suspect this year. Off year works for them. Lower urban turnout.
Rae says: “My understanding of the [G]MA is that no development on 60% means exactly that: you can’t mow it, clear the blackberries off (without some kind of costly permit), no walking paths, nothing.”
That’s not my understanding. The GMA is about preserving farming and forestry lands from being converted to “non-resource-based uses,” e.g., strip malls and parking lots. It doesn’t say you can’t pick blackberries or cut paths or *use rural land* in traditionally rural ways.
Yes, there are additional restrictions on sensitive or “critical” areas: you can’t dry up wetlands, degrade aquifers, destroy protected shorelines or poison streams (fish & wildlife habitat), create flooding and erosion hazards, etc. But even King County’s Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) doesn’t do the extreme things that are being claimed here. See the official FAQ.
Don’t forget that urban areas also have restrictions and additional requirements (e.g., providing affordable housing and transporation systems), to help focus growth there instead of encouraging sprawl.
FYI, here are King County’s urban growth area boundaries. It’s good to be able to visualize what we’re talking about.
“we need to start from the basic realistic assumption that state and local government can indeed limit land use without compensation, and that the principles behind the GMA are as Vesely said, part of our region’s “core beliefs.””
My NEW QUESTIONS, on top of the old ones:
3. What is eminent domain?
4. How far would you go w/ “state and local government can indeed limit land use without compensation”?
5. “The principles behind the GMA are as Vesely said, part of our region’s “core beliefs.””? HUH? What are the principles behind the GMA – just planning for growth while protecting present parkland?
Goldy- You should get out of the urban core and find out just how much pent up anger there is over the over-reaching of GMA. Pierce County just decided in their update that they wouldn’t make for a power play and try to exercise control over everything within a 150 feet of water on the Gig Harbor and Longbranch Peninsulas. Their rationale- the Shoreline Development Act regulates that, Growth Management doesn’t, there is no need for two sets of regulations on property owners. Their reward- having their decision appealed into the lengthy appeal process under GMA.
Or go talk to soccer moms and dads in Snohomish County, and explain to them why it is such an evil to have soccer fields on preserved agricultutral lands…
Or go talk with small lot tree farmers- mostly the folks who grow our Christmas trees- and get a load of their headaches…
I could go on and on with examples of people who had been relatively moderate in their politics who are being radicalized (to the right) by the excesses of Growth Management. The same type of people who finally joined the Eyman revolt against the car tabs, because the Legislature would not listen.
The Democrats in Olympia have no ability to go moderate on GMA, so don’t be surprised by the coming revolt…
Comment by Peter— 1/16/05 @ 5:36 pm
It is unfortunate that the county ordinance can’t be repealed by referendum. If a referendum was allowed, then the CAO would not come into effect until (and unless) it was approved in the referendum. And, under the county charter, when the county passes an ordinance related solely to unincorporated areas (such as CAO or other zoning matters, to name one such obvious category), only the voters in unincorporated areas matter for the purpose of getting signatures on a referendum or initiative, or voting on one.
If they would have allowed a referendum, then a powerful state initiative would not be necessary, and the CAO would simply be suspended and likely rejected heavily in a referendum.
It is true that state law could be amended to allow local referendum on zoning ordinances. Such referenda are not allowed at present, because the legislature has delegated zoning matters specifically to the county legislative authority — which rules out local referenda on such matters. I believe that local initiatives are likewise ruled out.
If you try to go to far with anything, people are likely to rise up in opposition and react just as powerfully, if not more so. It is one thing to tell a rural landowner that they must have five or ten acres to build a dwelling on. It is quite another to tell them that they can’t even mow the grass on over half their property and that hell will likely freeze over before they can (as a matter of practical reality at least) build *anything* on it.
Comment by Richard Pope— 1/16/05 @ 5:05 pm
#1. Well said. I personally find offensive that gov’t can say you own your land and we’re not just going to tax you but take 2/3rds of it from you for the hell of it. There is no way my cattle could be raised under that ordnance… not w/ all the blackberries that had to go.
#2. I think Tim Eyman should be kept out of it, period. There are some rather good anti-Eyman groups that will snare on to it like bees to honey. It’d also be best if the BIAW stayed out of the fight. Put a calm, cool-headed guy in charge.
My .02.
Rae asserts that “the property tax will continue as if it’s still highest and best use.”
But it’s not true. Open space, forested land and agricultural land are taxed fairly at the value of their current use, not the potential “highest and best use.” Here’s how the King County Assessor describes the property tax exemption:
Let’s get these myths out of the way before debate gets heated.
If your land is already in open space, that’s fine. But good luck getting it put into open space now if it’s not already designated that way. We have five acres, cannot subdivide, cannot have a rental, cannot develop. Fully three acres are in a wetland state much of the year, but there’s absolutely no hope of ever putting that into open space. The land “value” is $35,000 an acre now, but certainly we cannot recoup that in any way until we are forced to sell when the continually rising property taxes force us out.
Jim King suggests Goldy should “go talk to soccer moms and dads in Snohomish County, and explain to them why it is such an evil to have soccer fields on preserved agricultutral lands…”
I thought that was in King County . . . but nevermind. The idea that soccer fields are “preserved agricultural lands” is doublespeak at its finest. Now, maybe it would have made sense to reclassify the farm under the GMA from rural to urban (and that can be done, in exchange for other land), but a recreational complex doesn’t preserve agriculture any more than a parking lot does.
That’s what really gets me about this debate: people think it’s fine to contain urban sprawl, as long as they’re still free to spread urban sprawl themselves.
Rae laments that “Fully three acres are in a wetland state much of the year, but there’s absolutely no hope of ever putting that into open space.” Nonsense, Rae.
RCW 84.34.020 (Open Space Act/Current Value Taxation) Definitions.
As used in this chapter, unless a different meaning is required by the context:
(1) “Open space land” means . . . (b) any land area, the preservation of which in its present use would (i) conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources, or (ii) protect streams or water supply, or (iii) promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes . . . .
Comment by Jim King— 1/16/05 @ 5:54 pm
Don’t forget that the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax was also unpopular due to the unfair valuation system that was used (which, incidentally was mandated by a law passed by the legislature).
This law said that a vehicle was worth 100% of its base model MSRP up to and including its model year, 90% of base MSRP the following year, 83% two years after model year, 75% three years after model year, 67% four years after model year, and so forth.
So if you bought a $20,000 base MSRP 1998 model year car in August 1997, it was valued at $20,000 in August 1997, and also at $20,000 in August 1998. Then it would be valued at $18,000 in August 1999 (two years after purchase), $16,800 in August 2000 (three years after purchase), $15,000 in August 2001 (four years after purchase) and so on. This was extremely unfair, since a four year old car is generally worth far less than 75% of the original purchase price.
Also, the MVET made no distinction based on the actual MSRP of the vehicle as purchased, since all vehicles were valued as base models. So someone buying a $20,000 base model car would always pay the same MVET as someone who bought a loaded version of the same model with a $24,000 MSRP.
This blatant unfairness was one of the major reasons that provided the extra margin that I-695 needed to pass (or at least gave it a wide margin, instead of a narrow margin).
By the way, even though the statute mandating the inflated MVET value has now been repealed, it is still used for the 0.3% MVET imposed by Sound Transit, and for the 1.4% or so MVET used by the Seattle Monorail. There may be some legal or constitutional grounds for challenging the way those taxes are administered, but we are already off-topic :)
We’re in Pierce County and you must appeal to put land in open space. Just wanting to put it there to save on taxes will not fly. They don’t even want to put some obviously public space types of land into that classification. It’s a long story but I know because as president of our homeowners association I fought that fight with the Pierce County Council. I can guarantee that my 3 acres of wet property will never be entered into open space classification if for no other reason than it’s part of a lot that in in a development. The fact that it’s wet most of the year and unusable is irrelevant to those who grant or deny such appeals.
Josef, I submitted a post that addresses some of your questions—briefly what GMA is about, and what it does and doesn’t do—but it looks like it’s been held for approval (I probably included too many links). Wait for it…
Comment by David— 1/16/05 @ 6:21 pm
The open space current usage valuation is restricted to property owners who have promised in writing to keep their property as open space and not develop it. I think they can back out of their promises, but would be required to pay all the property taxes they have saved from the exemption (and probably something extra) when and if they develop it. It would not apply to property owners whose development rights were restricted by law. On the other hand, if development rights are restricted by law, the assessor should give the property a lower valuation.
Comment by Rae— 1/16/05 @ 6:04 pm
You should talk to the King County Assessor’s office about your property valuation, and appeal if you can’t get it resolved. Property is supposed to be valued based on its highest and best use, which may not necessarily relate to lot size. If you have five acres, and you characterize it as $35,000 per acre, that means that the assessor has determined your lot has a land value of $175,000.
If your land is in a decent area, and can be built on, and is accessible to public roads, and not too far away from everything, then $175,000 might be a fair lot value, even if only one dwelling can be built on it and it can’t be subdivided. More likely, a $175,000 valuation (unless it is in a richer, more demanded area) would be based on 2.5 acre zoning, and an assumption that it could be divided into two lots.
However, if your property cannot be built on at all, then $175,000 is a clearly excessive valuation. Some value in the speculation range of $10,000 to $30,000 would be more appropriate.
There are many lots that are on the tax rolls at speculative nuisance values — basically the ones which currently cannot be legally built on. For example, you will see some 4,000 square foot vacant lots in Seattle, in neighborhoods with 4,800 square foot zoning. Or you will see a septic tank subdivision, with say 10,000 to 15,000 square foot lots. The zoning is now 2.5 or 5.0 acres, but existing construction is of course grandfathered in. There may be one or two vacant lots that were never built on, which will likely be assessed around $4,000 to $6,000, even though they are the same size as the built lots (which are typically assessed around $100,000 to $125,000 for the land portion).
Well, Rae, you should be able to appeal that. State law is pretty clear. I haven’t read through the Open Space Act, but are you sure you need to get the official county designation before applying for the statutory property tax exemption?
Well, Rae, you should be able to appeal that. State law is pretty clear. I haven’t read through the Open Space Act, but are you sure you need to get the official county designation before applying for the statutory property tax exemption?
Dangit.
Comment by Rae— 1/16/05 @ 6:30 pm
Oh, you’re in Pierce County. $175,000 seems rather high for a 5.0 acre parcel in Pierce County. Definitely talk to the Assessor about that one.
We have talked to the assessor. I have appealed the total assessment at least once to no avail. You have to apply to get land put into open space. Last I knew, it was a $250, I think, for the appeal. And if they turn you down, guess who gets to keep your $250? You just can’t decide to put land into open space and expect it to happen anymore. The new Public Rating System, which gives a ranking on just how “open” your open space is was, in part, designed to prevent just that. Appealing a tax assessment costs you nothing, except time and effort. And of course, you have 30 days, which is about how long it takes you to get over the shock of the new assessment, which in turn results in you missing the appeal deadline. They’ve got you coming and going.
My opinion on property tax is instead of the pie in the sky base where the agent of the assesor guesses what something is worth, the last selling price should be the value of said property, UNLESS it has been refinanced for more then that becomes the new value.
David- go check out the Snohomish County situation. We are talking soccer fields here, not recreational facilities with buildings. Grass fields marked with chalk, goalposts, parking on the grass. Let’s a farmer make a little money from fallow land…
It CANNOT be classified urban- it is out in the middle of “rura;”, David!
No, GMA says just let it sit fallow, let farmer go broke.
Don’t let kids have place to play ball. As if soccer fields are “urban sprawl”…
That is the attitude that gets a lot of otherwise moderate people lined up behind radical proposals. I think we have again identified the problem, David- your type of thinking…
David- go check out the Snohomish County situation. We are talking soccer fields here, not recreational facilities with buildings. Grass fields marked with chalk, goalposts, parking on the grass. Let’s a farmer make a little money from fallow land…
It CANNOT be classified urban- it is out in the middle of “rura;”, David!
No, GMA says just let it sit fallow, let farmer go broke.
Don’t let kids have place to play ball. As if soccer fields are “urban sprawl”…
That is the attitude that gets a lot of otherwise moderate people lined up behind radical proposals. I think we have again identified the problem, David- your type of thinking…
Hope you get this site fixed soon.
Blog crash, Goldy?
Comment by Rae— 1/16/05 @ 7:46 pm
Maybe lots are rather valuable in your development, and your assessment isn’t really off base. When your land is valued at $175,000, that means that the land portion of the parcel is valued at $175,000. If everyone’s lot in your development is 5.0 acres, then that is probably the minimum lot size, and no one can subdivide. Probably everybody in your subdivision is assigned a lot value of $175,000.
I didn’t comprehend earlier that your 5.0 acre parcel probably contains the house that you and your family live in. I had somehow assumed (wrongly I think) that you had a vacant 5.0 acre parcel.
When improved land is assessed, the only truly relevant figure is the overall parcel value. The assessor first has to determine the value of the entire parcel, as is. Then the value of the land is determined. If for some reason the land as vacant is more valuable than the land as improved, the valuation of the parcel will be changed to the vacant land value, minus the cost of demolishing the improvements. In that case, the improvements are given a nominal value (in King County, $1,000, perhaps some other relatively small figure in other counties).
So if you were to appeal, you would have to prove that the value of your entire parcel (presumably as improved) would be less on the official valuation date (January 1, 2005 for taxes payable during 2006 and the assessment notice you will get sometime this year) than what the entire parcel was assessed for. You can’t simply say that the land portion or the improvement portion is too high — you have to appeal the entire assessment.
Realistically, if there is a 5.0 acre minimum lot size, the fact that 3.0 acres or so is wetlands will not change the value of the entire parcel all that much (assuming that a house can be built or has already been built). Most of the value of the lot comes from the fact that it can be built on in the first place, and not from how much of the land is buildable. (Of course, speculation can add to the value if you could use the entire 5.0 acres — someday the zoning may change, and it could be subdivided.)
I don’t think an open space exemption would do much good in your present circumstances. In theory, you could dedicate a portion of your 5.0 acre lot to open space. However, it would not really reduce the assessed value, if the lot value is primarily based on its suitability for building one house (yours which already exists).
Here is the crux of the “soccer field” issue:
Under the GMA, designated prime agricultural land can’t be permanently converted to a non-resource use like ballfields.
Jim, I’m aware of the situation in Snohomish. The GMA has forced several ballfields that were built on agricultural land to revert back to agriculture. But it’s nothing to get worked up about, if you believe what you‘ve been writing. You seem to implicitly agree that agricultural land must be preserved for agriculture, since you’ve been referring to soccer fields as “preserved agricultural lands” and “fallow land.” So you only support temporary recreational use, which is exactly what Snohomish has got. What the GMA prohibits is permanent repurposing from agriculture to recreation.
There’s some room for temporary use; just this November the Snohomish County Council passed an ordinance (#04-130) encouraging recreational uses on designated farmlands to the extent allowed by the Growth Management Act. The Council Chairman, John Koster, said “Interim use of fallow agricultural lands for limited recreational use under certain conditions makes perfect sense to almost everyone.” And it does. The problem is that people often aren’t talking about “interim” soccer fields “under certain conditions.” Turn a crop field into a soccer field—grade it, sow grass, erect goalposts, set out a parking lot, install concession stands and restrooms, enter into concession contracts and organize suburban soccer leagues that rely on having the field there—and it’s unlikely to turn back. The issue only ever comes up when expanding suburbs want more recreational fields and set their eye on cheap, flat farmland. (So yes, Jim, I do think soccer fields are part of (sub)urban sprawl.)
In 2000 King County tried just that trick, buying several farms on prime land near Woodinville and turning them into (what else?) soccer fields. They justified the use as “innovative zoning techniques” that the GMA permits. The Supreme Court slapped it down, 8 to 1 (Justice Sanders was in the majority). “Allowing conversion of resource lands to other uses or allowing incompatible uses nearby,” they said, “impairs the viability of the resource industry.” (King County v. Hearings Board, 142 Wn.2d 543, 559 (2000)).
While the GMA does allow some transformation to other uses where ag land has poor soil or is otherwise unsuitable for agriculture, it doesn’t permit suburban recreational demand to trump agriculture. And after evaluating the issue the Supreme Court clearly felt that recreational demands weren’t temporary: “The County’s argument that the land could be returned to agricultural use at a future time, despite the intensive use demanded by the growing urban population and the profitability of that use, is unpersuasive.” Id. at 562.
Note that we’re not talking about all rural land here; just designated productive agricultural areas. In King County that’s a total of about 3% of the county (I imagine it’s a fair bit more in Snohomish). It’s our public policy in Washington to try to conserve as much farmland as possible for farming instead of non-resource-based uses, and to prevent interference with agricultural activities by nearby non-agricultural land uses. “There are still thousands of acres suitable for athletic fields—outside the APDs [Agricultural Production Districts].” Id. at 563. The kids can have a place to play ball; it just can’t be converted farmland.
We have identified the problem, Jim—it’s the exaggerated claims and emotional appeals that have been framing this issue falsely, obscuring the GMA’s value and usefulness. People who want to hate the GMA should remember that it preserves rural lifestyles, ensures responsible environmental stewardship (conservation) and encourages smart urban development. Anecdotes relating outrageous stories just show that we need to pay attention to (and hold our elected officials accountable for) the way the GMA is administered by each of our counties and cities.
Hey, Josef, my post (#22 above) finally showed up. It includes links to FAQs for the King County Critical Areas Ordinance (you’ll see there’s been a bit of exaggeration about the impact) and a map that’s handy for visualizing things.
To answer your questions 1 and 5 (about growth management and the principles guiding it), here’s a good fact sheet/summary of the GMA and its goals from the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED).
Regarding your question 3 (about eminent domain), eminent domain is the state’s power to take (“condemn”) land for a public use; e.g., to make room for a freeway. Under the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I Section 16 of the Washington Constitution, the state must pay fair value for any property it takes.
And in answer to your questions 2 and 4 (about compensation for land use restrictions), here is a good WA AG’s advisory memorandum summarizing the law of takings (as of late 2003) with an eye to the GMA. The issue of regulatory takings (i.e., how much does a regulation have to limit your use in order to constitute a taking?) is complex and the edges of it are still developing (the Supreme Court has a couple of takings cases this term), so lawyers can have great fun arguing about it.
Hope this helps! G’night.
Prove to me that government spending is spending every dime correctly. YOu cant. Performance audits will show where the money is going. I would like to know where some of the money is going. HOw much is taken and disappears into a black hole. As an example the US Department of Education can not pass a single audit. At least since the 80’s yet they keep getting more money every year. I do not trust GOvernment unless they can provide honest proof of expenditures. WHy is it that we get two dozen different values on how much we spend on education in this state. I have seen numbers as low as 4000 to as high as 11000 per student. WHich is the real number? I dont know because I can not find out how much money comes into the state for education that goes to schools from the feds. Nor can I determine how much money is spent in Olympia instead of the Schools. Education money must be spent on education. So is a performance audit bad because we can finally put to rest the question HOW MUCH DO WE SPEND PER STUDENT ON EDUCATION IN THIS STATE? I want a strong and good education system for my kids. But if all the money is diverted to other programs ie Lottery money is for education only to sell it and it is spent everywhere else. LIke the car tab money we spent hundreds of dollars on every year that went everywhere but to roads. The performance audit will show how the money is really being spent. Me I would like to know how much of spending goes back to the state as SALES TAX. How much money is being sent overseas? How much money is going to undocumented aliens(Contrary to Federal Law)?
Sure David – we all agree that in theory, audits are a good thing. The only problem is that Tim Eyman is lying about the true cost of his initiative again. In short, he’s a liar and a crook. He’s creating an unfunded mandate that would cost the state government far more than it can afford, and far more than it would “uncover” in “waste”. If it costs you $45 million/year to discover $5 million in “waste” that’s dumb.
Eyman has everyone convinced the government does nothing to help them out and only wastes their money. Yet the main effect of Eyman’s initiatives is that they basically bankrupt the people who most strongly support him – rural counties east of the Cascades. His audit proposal will have the same effect.
For more info about the effect of I-695 and I-747 see this article.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....wn17m.html
So if you support audits, support your legislature. As Goldy has said “State Auditor Brian Sonntag has been pushing for such legislation for years, and leaders of both parties have committed to passing it.”
David in Comment #48 frames the issue correctly without getting mired in questions about assessments, etc. The real question is larger, more obvious and subject to the interpretations of legislators and attorneys.
Is a regulatory “taking” expropriation?
Is such a taking protected under eminent domain statutes?
Does the CAO have a “public purpose” that outweighs the rights of individual owners?
Is it ok to expropriate land for “economic development” e.g. buying farm tracts to sell to Wal-Mart or GM’s Poletown plant?
If it is not ok to use the land for Wal-Mart, then why is it still ok to allow for a regulatory taking?
The largest questions of illicit use of Eminent Domain occur in those two areas, for purposes of “economic development” and for purposes of economic “non-development”. If you stand for one, but not the other, then why? They are both questions of individual property rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights versus the alleged “rights” of the public’s “interest” as defined by legislators and municipalities.
I just posted this at the other website. I think it may sum up a lot of the issues in the Washington gubernatorial debate:
The answer to the issue of Ohio vs. Washington is a simple one. When Republicans talk about electoral reform it is always to EXCLUDE voters from the rolls. When the Democrats talk about it, it is to INCLUDE as many legal voters as possible.
Democrats want to make voting simple, easy and unrestrictive to encourage participation by minorities, students, the homeless and legally approved felons — in short anyone who meets the barest MINIMUM test of citizenship.
If Republicans would have their way, based on all of the contributions to this website, the only people allowed to vote would be white male property owners who are also career military officers! Then, and only then, would we have real “democracy.”
In fact, I’m sure if you took a poll of most of the contributors to this website, they would enthusiastically support the original voting rights embedded in the US Constitution: which were white male property owners, with blacks, Indians and others counted as 3/5 of a person.
Women? Oh yeah. Republicans would permit women to vote, provided they were married, over 40, had no interest in reproductive rights and signed a pledge to endorse all Republican social policies!
While my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek here, I actually don’t think I’m too far off the mark.
GOP Electoral Reform: EXCLUSIONARY policies to make it as difficult to register and vote as possible.
Dem. Electoral Reform: INCLUSIONARY policies to make it as simply and easy to register and vote as possible.
I, for one, am really offended by your post, Nelson. How does requiring proof of citizenship when one registers to vote (thereby being a legal voter) exclude, uh, elligable legal voters? If you’re not legal, you shouldn’t be voting, and anybody who doesn’t see that has their head securely buried in the sand.
Rae —
Just where in my post did you see ANY reference at all to me saying that people who did not meet legitimate citizenship requirements should be allowed to vote?
Here is the direct quote from my post that you obviously object to:
“Democrats want to make voting simple, easy and unrestrictive to encourage participation by minorities, students, the homeless and legally approved felons – in short anyone who meets the barest MINIMUM test of citizenship.”
Note that I stated: “…the barest MINIMUM test of citizenship,” but I emphasized that they SHOULD ABSOLUTELY be citizens and meet whatever test is required by law — but the test should be minimal. No poll tax, no literacy requirement, no disqualification for the disabled, no property ownership, no nothing else, except being a citizen, being 18 years old or older and having minimal residency requirements for that jurisdiction. If that isn’t good enough for you, then you prove the point I was making about Republicans wanting EXCLUSIONARY policies.
Thanks, Rex. You’re asking good questions, but you’ve set up a false choice too.
In your fourth question you ask whether it’s okay for the state to take property for “economic development.” By the examples you give, you are asking whether the state can legitimately use eminent domain to condemn land for private uses, as opposed to public use. Conventional wisdom is that the state can’t do that (and in this state, the Washington State Constitution specifically forbids public takings for private use in Article I Section 16).
[Side note of interest: The city of New London, CT is trying to condemn private property to give to a developer on the argument that an increased tax base is a public purpose; the homeowners challenged the taking. The case, Kelo v. New London, is being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this year. I hope the homeowners win.]
In your last question you set up the false choice: if the state can’t take land for ‘economic development,’ how can it take land for ‘economic non-development’? Cute phrasing, but wrong. The state can’t condemn land for private use, but it can condemn land via eminent domain for public use and it can regulate land uses for public benefit. That’s the conceptual basis for all zoning law. And if a regulatory restriction goes too far, it can amount to a taking and require the state to pay for the property. (See the AG memo linked in post #48).
The Growth Management Act is a comprehensive zoning law (not an exercise of eminent domain). The GMA merely limits the kind and character of development that can occur in different areas, to conserve ag land, prevent strip mall sprawl, encourage urban development, etc.
The Critical Areas Ordinance does forbid some development in sensitive places like shorelines, wetlands, aquifer recharge lands and flood-prone areas. I figure that’s probably what you meant by “purposes of economic ‘non-development'”. It’s not about economics; it’s about preventing the destruction of environmentally sensitive areas. Protecting certain fragile but key environments helps ensure water quality, maintain salmon streams, avoid flood damage, etc. Those are solid public purposes that easily justify the CAO’s limited, focused land use restrictions.
If you don’t think so, ask yourself this: if I have a stream crossing my property, is it a public benefit to prevent me from poisoning the stream?
Apparently now you don’t have to provide any kind of proof that you are legal in order to vote. (Motor/Voter registration, for example). And I’m not necessarily against legal homeless voting, but how is the “legal” citizenship verified when they register? If that’s what you mean by exclusionary, then so be it. If you can verify your legal citizenship status, then by all means, you should be allowed to vote. But if you can’t, well, then you can’t and along with that, you shouldn’t be registered or allowed to vote until you can. At some point, everybody needs to be accountable, including being expected to provide proof that they are who they say they are, that they reside where they say they do, and that they are legal citizens of the country/state/county they say they are. Again, if that’s exclusionary, well, so be it.
David,
I asked myself “if I have a stream crossing my property, is it a public benefit to prevent me from poisoning the stream?”. The answere is obviously yes.
The problem with the GMA and the way that agencies are implementing it is the GMA requirement that “best science” be the standrad that Critical Areas regulations have to meet. The “best science” approach goes way beyond poisoning streams. You would find nearly unanimous agreement that poisoning a stream is and should be outlawed (in fact already is under numerous other laws that predate the GMA).
A perfect example of how the agencies have reached too far with the GMA-required critical areas regulations is the King County fiasco. The “best science” review that was undertaken went light years beyond preventing streams from poison.
By requiring that best science be the standard for critical areas regulation, the GMA removes any chance of legislative decision making, compromise, middle ground, etc. This over reaching aspect of it is the problem.
here’s another article about the planned initiatives:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sea.....st=b_ln_hl
zip, can you be more specific about “the King County fiasco” and how the ‘best science’ CAO review overreached? From what I’ve seen (including the King County CAO frequently asked questions) there’s been plenty of exaggeration about the effect of the final critical areas ordinance.
Rae —
From the SOS website, here are the requirements a prospective voter must meet to legally register to vote:
To register to vote, the following information should be included on the form:
* Full Name
* Date of Birth
* Resident Address
* Address of your residence for voting purposes
* Address of your former registration
* Mailing Address
* Gender
* Washington State Driver License, or Identification Card #
* Attestation of U.S. Citizenship
* Signature on the oath
Where does that give you a problem?
No problem whatsoever, unless those items listed are followed. Attestation of US Citizenship: does that mean you state you are a citizen or is some kind of proof required. If, some registrations were lax, and Oops, I don’t have my id with me today, I guess you could satisfy all those requirements but give a different name each time. There are holes, that’s what I’m saying. I do not see that as exclusionary.
Whoops, make that “unless those items listed are NOT followed.”
David, I’ve got to dash so will be brief:
The King County fiasco was rewriting the CAO to require rural land woners to keep specified percentages of their land in an undisturbed native vegetation. That is what started this rush to scrap the GMA.
It’s a fiasco because people are now up in arms.
The best science approach ahs always been in the gMA. 10 years ago the CAO were written and people grumbled but generally went along with it and got used to it. It zeroed in on properties that conatin critical areas or were nearby a critical area. Now, 10 years later, they relied on some studies that say the only way to avoid impact to streams is to keep a percentage of the land in that watershed undisturbed. The problem is that “no impact” is over reaching, the old CAO was not perfect but was doing a good job of regulating use on the most critical properties and (from what I’ve heard) the studies they relied on were pretty generic and don’t really get too specific about “what’s wrong with the way we’ve been doing it, anyway?” So the new CAO comes out with the (supposed) best science approach, and the county council can use the GMA language as an excuse for passing it. As in, “GMA requires the new code to be based on best science, so we violate GMA if we stick to the present CAO.”
I say take out the best science language from the GMA and look at more than just best science. In this case, King County can rightly say their hands were tied. They were not allowed to look at economic impacts of the new CAO, or for example was the old CAO 90% as good as this new fiasco one, becasue the GMA doesn’t let them look at those issues.
Nelson–
If all this information is provided and validated, there should be no problem. I think the only validation is when the voter registration card is mailed to the mailing address and that doesn’t accomplish much really, does it.
I believe there needs to be clear text that defines what your registration for voting purposes means. Too loosey-Goosy. And why would you have a residence address, mailing address and RESIDENCE FOR VOTING PURPOSES?????? What are the differences?
Last, I believe we should add Social Security Numbers as a starting point for a Voter Re-registration. Who in the hell doesn’t have a Social Security Number and why not? If there is a good reason, it ought to be explained. Then names and SS#’s can be compared Nationwide for duplicate registration AND for NAMES THAT DON”T MATCH SS#’s (stolen identity).
Nelson–I doubt you will be for doing everything possible to make sure only legitimate voters are registered only once, at the appropriate address (ie where they lay their head down at night).
That would me you can’t cheat as easily!!! Heaven forbid!
When you attack the need for land use regulation and zoning, remember the face of the man in California who lost his family in a mud slide. Should development be allowed at the foot of unstable slopes? When they are developed and help is needed, must the government come in and dig them out? Do they even expect disaster relief to rebuild in the same spot.
My personal favorite was the house near I-5 made uninhabitable due to shifting slopes. They sues Seattle for allowing them to build. THen they sold the property, no doubt expecting it to re rebuilt.
BAA BAA BAA –The R’s assumption that there is a major problem with illegal people voting is absurd. Racist at heart, and simply more parinoia. Fear the other, not like us all American white folks.
Why would such folks, here illegally, bring visibility to themselves? For what?
Like a heard of sheep following the latest blather from somr R hack – now the BIG problem are illegals voting. God, their minds are in a sorry state. That includes you Rae.
Mr C – go play with your yourself…..still waiting, still waiting, still waiting —PROOF, such a hard to fathom legal standard. Interrupts ranting and raving…..all those smug good times…at the ranting and raving R meetings
Proof
SS#? You’ve got to be kidding me. EVERY banking and financial advisory service says NEVER give out your Social Security # if you can help it. Every hear of credit card identity theft? I’m sure you would be as willing as I am to give thousands of temporary state or county volunteer workers the access to your SS#, along with your name, address, signature, etc. NOT!!!!
And all we need is another govt. agency setting up some cross reference data base of SS#s and voter registration to locate every single American at a moment’s notice. NOT!!!!
The only reasons somebody like you would even propose something like that is if (a) you hadn’t thought of the negative ramifications of why even you wouldn’t register to vote with that requirement; or (b) you thought it might scare millions and millions of voters away and that would play right into your preference for EXCLUSIONARY voting — the very point I made when I started this thread.
Personally, I’m not against the intelligent use of technology to make voter registration and voting simpler and less prone to fraud. I don’t think Social Security #s are necessary, but states and counties should come up with a way to share databases and eliminate a lot of the paper/manual mess that currently exists. At the same time, we should be ensuring that everyone has voting machines that work, enough machines so they don’t have to wait in long lines and some assurance their vote is actually counted correctly.
But Nelson and others are right in that the Republicans almost never propose those kind of election reforms. Republicans couch their proposals in neutral terms like “preventing fraud” (similar to the BS about “equal time” for creationism in schools), but Republican proposed voting restrictions are always designed to reduce the number of people voting. They usually propose restrictions designed to frighten, threaten or disenfranchise minorities, new immigrants or former criminals (see Florida). Also note that Republicans almost always oppose any regulations that require universal improvements the technology used in voting (i.e. working machines in all polling places), or that prevent “centralized voting fraud” (i.e. paper trails).
Republicans know that the more people that are legally allowed to vote, the more likely it is that they will lose, so they work hard to prevent core Democratic constituencies from voting.
The book “Right to Vote” by Alexander Keyssar has some fascinating history on the long battle towards universal suffrage in the US All along the way the people who are at the core of the modern-day GOP have fought to restrict the rights of women, minorities, former felons and new immigrants. To be fair, Keyssar castigates anyone (not just one political party) who opposes efforts towards reasonably increasing the number of people who can vote (some of the felon disenfranchisement laws were designed to prevent Confederate “war criminals” from voting – but most of those no longer exist). The author also opposes restrictions limiting former felons’ rights to vote (they have flimsy/no justification), proposes scrapping the electoral college (“an anti-democratic anachronism that has virtually no justification in the modern world.”) and some other interesting ideas. http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/vir.....eyssar.htm
Before anyone jumps in, I know that the Democrats work hard to enfranchise minorities, immigrants and former felons because those contituencies disproportionately vote Democratic. But it’s a completely false equivalency to say that Democrats proposals that support Universal Suffrage are equally “partisan” (read: bad) when compared to Republican proposals designed to restrict voting access.
Just like the theory that the planets revolves around the sun is not equal to the theory that the planets revolve around the earth just because their both theories.
Republicans always claim it’s about “preventing fraud”, but it’s not. Poll taxes, machines that don’t work in poor counties, police intimidation in Florida, felon “purge lists”, lack of accountability for electronic voting machines are all the results of Republicans’ refusal to support real election reform.
David,
I am trying to frame the question, not setting up false choices. Although takings for the purpose of a Wal-Mart or similar may in fact be “for private use”, if it employs 100 people, then how much further does it need to be taken for the “public benefit” argument to gain traction?
Thanks for the citation about current Eminent Domain supreme court hearings but the case of GM’s Poletown facility is one of the watershed decisions on this topic, which I cited in my post. Nollan vs. CCC is another good one to reference.
How about California landowners that had their exclusive beach rights expropriated via a regulatory taking, thereby making all beaches public property? Was there “due process” there? Was it expropriation? Or did the “public benefit” outweigh the individual rights of landowners? And beyond all of that, no money was paid to these landowners because it was a regulatory taking.
How about “rails to trails” programs wherein people buy land under the presumption of a vacated railroad right of way on their abutting property only to have the whole corridor purchased for a use not reserved under the original provision for purchasing that right of way?
How about littoral water rights on Lake Washington? Would it be acceptable to start making 40′ up from the high water mark public property? And paying no compensation for that purchase?
I am opposed to expropriation by way of CAO limits on development rights just as I am opposed to expropriation for the purpose of siting a Wal-Mart. My question is where to draw the line?
You ask about whether or not I can poison that stream. That is a ludicrous assertion because riparian water rights that run with the land entitle me to the extraction of water, not dumping into the water. However, I bet that if I wanted to construct a bridge across that stream, I would be on the hook for thousands of dollars in governmental fees for shoreline reviews, critical areas, EIS, slope stability, etc. Is that fair?
Property ownership includes a bundle of rights that are (or ought to be) unassailable. If legislative bodies try to abridge those rights, just compensation ought to result.
My question is simple, where does one draw the line? If a government can impinge upon your bundle of rights and not pay you any compensation, it effectively has made individual property rights subordinate to the state. Shall we then devolve into selective enforcement of provisions depending upon the motivations of the applicant? That may seem reasonable enough at first blush but it becomes autocratic quickly.
To jcricket:
Very cogent and good comments.
I’ve actually been waiting for the neocons here to actually propose going back to the original US Constitutional language that voters had to be: white male property owners over 21, with blacks counting as only 3/5 of a person.
That is true Republican election reform!
I’ve actually been waiting for the neocons here to actually propose going back to the original US Constitutional language that voters had to be: white male property owners over 21,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have an even better idea, send the property tax bill to the occupant of the house and require that they pay it to keep their drivers licence, then lets vote on property tax….
I’m all for it! When they violate our civil rights with lousy thieving legislation like CAO, the County deserves what it gets! Anyone who voted for the CAO and claims to care about civil rights has no idea of the meaning of the words.
Rex, I agree that it’s important to frame the issue correctly, which is why I responded to your questions earlier.
In Washington, the “public benefit” argument will never justify takings of private property for someone else’s private use. Not unless our state Constitution is changed, anyway. Wal-Mart, GM, New London . . . they’re not applicable here.
CAO regulations that limit your rights to ‘develop’ sensitive areas don’t fall into the same box. There’s a bright line between the eminent domain takings you mentioned and regulatory land use restrictions like the CAO. It’s easy to draw. You’re right, though, that there can be a fine line between regulation and regulatory takings. It’s fairly well set, though. Read Gregoire’s AG Advisory Memorandum (link in post #48) and it explains the boundaries.
Does the CAO cross that boundary? Well, look at the stream example. You’re right, Rex, that water rights don’t entitle you to dump in the water. So if you want to build a bridge, you have to make sure that it won’t destroy any critical habitat, that building it won’t throw all sorts of sediment and debris into the water, that when you’re done the banks are properly sloped and stabilized to prevent flooding damage. That’s probably a regulatory hassle, but not a giant imposition on your property rights. Is that fair? Well, yeah. You can’t do whatever you want if it will cause problems downstream (literally and figuratively).
If you think the government shouldn’t be able to limit what you can do with your land at all unless it compensates you, then what about zoning? If I own residential property, should the state have to pay me because I can’t build a factory there? If I own industrial-zoned property, should the state have to pay me because I can’t build and sell condos there? No. Property rights aren’t absolute.
Now, zip brought up plenty of issues with the CAO process and the ‘best science’ rule that has apparently been used to over-restrict rural land uses. That’s a separate set of questions, and a more valuable place to focus our energy.
David, Actually my biggest problem with the “best science” rule is that it enables local councils to pass the buck as they enact ever more strict critical areas regs. If the GMA gave local govts aome legislative authority, fine, they can pass as strict a reg as they dare. As things stand now, they can easily pass the buck.
As a footnote to this conversation, the Page 1 headline article in today’s Seattle P-I shows we need environmental protections like the CAO:
State of Puget Sound troubling
Development continues to overtake cleanup efforts, report finds
David, as a further footnote, a group called Lorman Education Services is putting on a seminar regarding the GMA Feb 22 in Seattle.
http://www.lorman.com
It costs $$ to attend but would be very enlightening, although the agenda seems slanted towards the regulatory side. Since this will be a hot topic in the coming year, thought you and others might be interested.