February 17, 2005
Is this good home training?
King County Executive Ron "99.98%" Sims' attempt to hold a secret lovefest last night with Issaquah Democrats did not turn out as planned. "CAO opponents crash meeting - Democrats had hoped to keep county executive's appearance to themselves" The Democrats were joined by several dozen aggrieved rural property owners
Sims kept his eyes straight ahead and did not address the protesters, who carried signs that read, ``They can't have 65 percent of my land,'' and shouted at him as he walked up a few steps and into the building.
``It's not your land; it's our land,'' they yelled. ``Tell the truth, Ron.'' ``Good house training, Ron.''
Sims tried to control the meeting by taking questions only from Democrats. But even that attempt to crush dissent backfired:
a curve ball was thrown when the final question was asked by a woman who turned out to be a Democrat no longer.
``I was a Democrat until September,'' said Cherri Mann, her throat quivering. ``I walked the walk and I talked the talk.''
Mann proceeded to explain to Sims that her five-acre Bear Creek property is ``worthless'' now, because of the strict development limitations of the CAO.
Mann said she needs to get an $800 permit to pick raspberries on her property, and her dog can only run free on two acres of the land.
``My property is worthless,'' she said. ``How can government overstep so much?''
Sims said he would take her phone number and investigate her case.
Then a long-haired man in the back stood up.
``It's not just her,'' he said. ``She speaks for thousands of us.''
I don't know what kind of home Ron Sims was trained in, but where I come from, secrecy, dishonesty, suppression of dissent and theft are not the marks of "Good home training
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 17, 2005
05:00 PM | Email This
1. A jaw-dropping article, to be sure.
These guys (libs) must really be getting tired of you. Keep up the good work. I don't live in KC, but I have friends who do, and they are livid with the CAO.
I hope this is the undoing of RS, and his cronies, so that we can get some real leadership in his office.
Big Govt = Bad Idea. That's what our Founding Fathers believed (and died for) and that's what we constantly must keep battling against.
Don't let this die.
What I don't get is how anyone can stand for him stating he will only take questions from Democrats. He should be taking questions from those people who question the CAO and not those he believes will be "yes people." I have to say, at least it backfired in his face.
I hope some of those former Democrats as well as current Democrats realize how ridiculous it is to keep him in office and vote him out!!!!
4. Where I come from, "good home training" means telling the truth -- where I am today, were I not a small biz owner, i would be at EVERY meeting Sims attends to call him out on dishonesty...
5. King Sims has finally lost his mind. Here I thought he was the "Executive" of all the people of King County - not just the democrats. I never cease to be amazed at the audacity of these people. Can you imagine what would happen if ANY Republican in public service said he would only take questions from Republicans? It would probably go to the Supreme Court.
6. Surely Sims didn't state that he would only take questions from Democrats...even he's not that stupid... I think he must have just tried to take questions from only Democrats... But, if I'm wrong.. Boy is he ever...extra STUPID!
7. That is exactly what I am talking about. I would be more focused on that because it seems to be the root of the problem.
Maybe he should also go to owners in Seattle and take their land (or a portion of their condos.) I am sure he would have a hard time getting
8. ``My property is worthless,'' she said. ``How can government overstep so much?''
Too bad its not a true statement or she could sue the state under the taking provisons of the US constitution as many have.
Yes, she may be restricted from building a high density apartment complex on her land. However, that's not a taking, its called zoning.
If she wants to see the result of unregulated zoning, have her move to south of Tacoma where there is endless sprawl, strip mall, McDonalds and random chaos.
The fact is that her property values have likely skyrocketed over the last 15 years and now may go up a little more slowly.
It's not about building apartment complexes in Farm Country. It's about the fact that she really can't do anything with 65% of her land. She couldn't even build a barn or an addition to her house if the space they would cover take her over those limits. This is far beyond zoning, because zoning already prevents the building of apartment complexes out here. How much of a hit do you think her property value will take when she tries to sell the place, and the ad has to say "10 acres (3.5 acres usable)"? There is no way anyone within the Seattle city limits would ever stand for such a limitation on their property, so why is it Ok when it's rural King County residents?
11. You are so wrong here Erik. She is not overreacting about this. Are they going to revalue the land to take into consideration the property tax paid? They should base it on usable land. Don't tax us for something we aren't allowed to use.
When Sims talks about "good home training," he is talking about learning to be a good little socialist.
This is a perfect example of the totatitarian nature of the so-called "progressives" that control the entire state ar
They should have asked Sims if he agrees with this idea of property rights:
"I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: the common good takes precedence over self-interest. But the state must retain control and each property owner should consider himself an agent of the state. . . . The Third Reich will always retain the right to control the owners of property."
"Private Property, Freedom, and the Rule of Law"
Richard Pipes; Hoover Digest, 2001, No. 2
Obviously you have never studied urban land use or any like subject.
Imagine that you have five beautiful acres, and a hog-fat rendering plant moves in next door. All of a sudden you have pollution and terrible stink throughout your property. You would be right to seek compensation from the plant for those externalities.
Now imagine the plant was already there. Would you buy those five acres knowing that those problems were already there? Maybe, but you would be compensated for the externalities in the (vastly) lower cost of the land.
This same model is true of an airport. Why do you think residents have been fighting against a third runway? When they moved in they paid a high price, and the value of their land will go down when jets take off and land directly overhead.
Enter the CAO. When the woman bought the five acres, there were no restrictions, and she paid market price for those five unresricted acres. Now if and when she wants to sell the property, the NEXT person to buy it will pay a decreased price because of the land-use restrictions. They will be buying five acres WITH restrictions (essentially two acres without restrictions.)
The CAO has devalued her land, and she has received no compensation. Is that fair? What if King County told you that you could not paint, carpet, remodel, or do anything in three bedrooms of your five-bedroom house? It would be worth less to you. What if they told you that you could only have two people in your car, even though it seats five? Your car would be less useful and therefore devalued. And you receive no compensation for this devaluation.
It's a program of serial land devaluation by King County.
Your response shows how little you know about economics.
Your response is, to say the least, ill-informed and without empathy. Just how do you think the woman in the article SHOULD feel? Appreciative and thankful to the county, for cutting her legs out from under her?
Someday, when you grow up and perhaps think about leaving something to your family (like real estate), you may appreciate how utterly strong-handed this CAO is. I mean, have you even bothered to educate yourself about these restrictions, and what they impose upon the property owners affected?
16. Erik obviously doesn't own property, since he doesn't understand the seriousness of the situation, and he obviously doesn't care. Maybe just another example of class warfare..you know, anyone who has material things simply shouldn't be allowed to have them... Not if Erik, or others like him, don't! You know how awful those RICH people are...the ones who worked hard and saved and invested... Just not fair, is it?
You know something is wrong when you have to pay the government to pick berries in your own back yard.
This is just one more nail in the coffin of the liberals of Washington state.
18. Erik, please tell us, exactly how much property do you own? Maybe I should say LAND, not property. Your VW, snowboard and bong don't count.
I'm sure we will soon hear arguements such as:
Property owners found property values went up after 65% of it was restricted.
Most property owners want to restict their property, but don't want to be the only ones.
Over 80% of the people in this state don't have 5+ acres to run around on, so why should they put up with the other 20% being able to do so.
Best of all, since the property owner now has 65% less work to do maintaining the property they'll thanks us for easing their workload.
"Your VW, snowboard and bong don't count"
I don't mean to detract from the seriousness of the debate, but damn you folks can really crack me up some times :-)
Back on point, I own a house on a quarter acre in Duvall. My understanding is that CAO would actually prevent me from building a deck off my back porch because I'd be covering more than 35% of my total land area. Is that fair?
thanks for noticing the CAO protest.
To be honest, it was a meeting called by democrats for democrats, so I guess if Ron, a democrat, only wishes to speak to others of like mind, he may. However, the democrats did allow the protesters in, after being asked politely if they may. Their taxes paid for the damn room, too. Although not the cookies!
Erik you are misguided, it is not a condo the woman wants, if it were, I am sure it would be allowed. Ron only hears two things, big money enviromentalists, and big money. This is why the CAOs are actually a taking, it is being borne on the backs of the rural people, not the big developers or individuals who live in cities.(not just seattle)
It does not affect only large parcels, over 5 acres is 65%, under 5 acres is 50% set aside as no touch. You will hear talk about stewardship plans, but they come at a cost, and they are very stringently administered. So if Ron says you can do what you wish on your property, he is not being honest. If you want to know what you are talking about, and have something other than the party line in your head, go to the King County website, and do some research. You can read all three of the ordinances, word for word, and see how easily a person could still be free and live under them. Then do some real research on the stewardship plans. Tax incentives are offerred, but then a person has to invest a certain amount of money in following a plan, even with matching funds, think about the time and labor involved to get something accomplished. It is not a net profit, in some cases it would result in a loss. Not to mention being told exactly how and whento do everything,down to the placement of plants at specified distances, etc. Do you as an adult think you would like to be told exactly how to do something you can do perfectly well on your own, and pay for that as well?
Do you know that there are many people who will loose a great deal of their lifetimes investment due to this? I am talking our older folks who are very near retirement. Just because they are a mile in another direction their property has lost value, yet a developer is making a huge profit nearby? Do you think compensation is a just way to deal with those people? Or should they just suck it up because fate has placed them in the wrong spot on the planet, and they don't happen to be wealthy enough to have the same influence as some very obvious others, think bill gates. The reural people who protest are not against the environment, they live in it. What they are against is the unjust, overreaching of the most recent update, the CAOs. There have been zonings, and environmental rules ad nauseum before this, and they were more than adequate. Check out what the county's own lead scientist had to say about the need for more stringent rules. They are not based in sound science, and the truth is more damage is being done to the environment in Seattle in a day than is done in rurals areas in 5 years, check out how many raw sewaage "accidents" occur in the puget sound in a year. Maybe people in Seattle should look into that?
I think the truth is Ron simms only cares for those who line his pockets, and for those who echo his plans. Everyone else can just live with his plans for our environment.
By the way, Mr. Ron, arrived at the meeting in a very shiny heavy duty cadilac SUV! I don't care what he drives, but I do see he does not think he should be honest in his own practices. If the environment was so important to him, should he be driving a hybrid?
My last piece of advice to you Erik, is to read the Washington State Constitution. It is an important document to become aquainted with, who knows? If you think it is okay for the county to bite the rural peoples ass, how long till they want to turn around and bite yours? Oh! forgot! they are already doing that aren't they? Think about the piece of land Ron wants to sell to a developer for a condo instead of the community park many would like to see over there by gasworks park. I wonder which would be better for the environment? Or is it only the environment that some people own that matters?
Do you still think the constitution is being evenly applied? There's that money thing again.
Maybe Ron is so interested in money now, as he has spent a lot of capital on propaganda being mailed out to tell all of us how wonderful the CAOs are, and how they won't interfere with our lives at all. It is propaganda, as it does not serve to inform, or the truth would be told, but only to sway those who are uninterested enough to be informed. It is so easy to feel good about the environment, especially when you can do it at the expense of others.
Wake up! When the constitution is denied to some, it is denied to all. Maybe you don't think that protection is important now, since you are not a rural landowner, but once it is gone, it is gone, and the precedent is set to continue on with the same disregard in the future.
Zoning are your kidding me? You are way out of your league on this one.
Zoning and urban sprawl are already limited in rural King County by the GMA (Growth Managemant Act). And the only way around the GMA is to bribe through campaign contributions to county council members. See Quandrant/Trilogy major developments in Redmond.
"The fact is that her property values have likely skyrocketed over the last 15 years and now may go up a little more slowly."
So your property value can continue to 'skyrocket' because you can develop/landscape/remodel near 100% of your land and because I chose to live in a rural area mine are going to be slowed by a government land control ordinance that has 65% of my land tied up? Not to mention that there's no grandfather claus. Gee that sounds fair!
Not to mention that they jacked up my property tax another 4%. Which amounts to getting spit in the face.
But after that comment you made Erik, I now fully understand your position on the 2004 election!
23. Obviously you have never studied urban land use or any like subject.
I have a bit actually.
.... read the Washington State Constitution. It is an important document to become aquainted with, who knows?
Yes. I agree.
No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having been first made . . . .
WASH. CONST. art. I, § 16.
And one of the greatest line of cases coming from the state and federal courts are "taking" cases where state agencies have such a high level of regulation to constitute a "taking."
If it had occured with her, she could do what many other landowners have done and obtain compensation. Maybe she is due some compensation, who knows.
One recent split decison was
Linda Eggleston v. Pierce County, 148 Wn.2d 760,
(use this search engine :http://search.mrsc.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=courts.htm$vid=courts:court)
This is a great case as it has a vigorous dissent of Sanders and Alexander when a "taking" occurs and when it does not.
Yes, it does deal with it at a little different angle. The main and dissenting opinions, however, flush out the standard for property use in general.
Look, with so much land affected, there are certainly going to be times where the regulation is too strict. I am going to guess that KC will modify their general rules on a case by case basis.
Maybe KC will even back off of their latest law passed.
Then again, some reasonable zoning and use regulation is going to have to be employed.
Folks, Erik is rolling his wit into little balls of...cotton, and he's playing fetch with you.
I understand why it works for him...I don't understand why you want to participate.
Obviously what little you studied of land use and/or economics did not sink in. You're not making sense and missing the point.
The CAO is not about 'taking' land, so your court case citations are moot: so hypothetical as to be meaningless.
The CAO is all about the (unnecessary) devaluation of land without compensation by King County.
My examples to you still stand. Imagine if King County told you that you couldn't have more than two people, driver included, in your five-passenger vehicle. Would that not make your car worth less? You paid for a five-seater.
Imagine you have a five-bedroom house but King County says that you cannot paint nor remodel nor even move the furniture around in three of them. Whatever state the are in now, they must stay in that state. Would your house be worth less? It sure would. Fewer, if any, people would want to buy it because they would shop for houses in a place where they had control over them.
It's the same with land. All these rural landowners bought their property without these restrictions. Now their property has been devalued without compensation. And to make it worse, King County did not 'take' the land. If KC took the land, the owners COULD get compensation.
King County should be made to buy 65% of each lot at current market value. That, at least, would be eminent domain.
This was a crime.
Its one thing to argue with me over a case, another to steal my signature.
The CAO is not about 'taking' land, so your court case citations are moot: so hypothetical as to be meaningless.
But it is. This is the distinction between permissable goverment regulations and when individuals are entitled to monetary compensation.
More and more people are getting fed up with hap hazard zoning and eventually creates an area that few want to live in and drives down property values.
Some of the highest regulated zoning areas are also the most valued.
Some certainly would prefer that land owners be able to put a single wide mobile home anywhere they like. Others disagree with them and are currently are on the KC council.
Other counties like Grant or Lincoln have very few zoning regulations. You can build almost anything anywhere. Yet no one wants to move there.
On the other hand people are dying to move to KC and cant get enough of it.
27. I think that the CAO is clearly a taking from a constitutional perspective that requires just compensation with respect to many properties.
28. I think that the CAO is clearly a taking from a constitutional perspective that requires just compensation with respect to many properties.
29. I think that the CAO is clearly a taking from a constitutional perspective that requires just compensation with respect to many properties.
Then if you are personally affected by it, you can bring an action under either state or federal law for reasonable compensation. Many landowners have doen this and prevailed.
30. Erik: Erik said that Erik doesn't have the right to take Eriks' name. Now I'm just wondering if Erik realizes that Erik has a right to the name Erik, and I'm sure that Erik would agree, but Eriks' ursurping of Eriks property without just compensation might cause Erik undue distress.
Seems like the word gets around and those who attended to voice dissent made their presence known, after King Goofball (Sims) sterling performance with Bagdad Dean with the fluffed up Election Report last week. Thank God for the first amendment ! and also the newly formed blogosphere.
I know this sounds a bit mean spirited to you progressives out there, but the CAO is beyond mean spirited - nothing short of Soviet legislation. It needs to be stopped ASAP. This demonstrates that Ron Sims' stock is dropping and he is vulnerable, if there is formidable opposition to run against him - so Stefan, maybe you can encourage someone formidable with integrity to oppose Ron Sims, who is devoid of any integrity !
Erik said: "On the other hand people are dying to move to KC"
That's not really a fair measure. The dying want to move to KC so they can vote eternally.
33. Goldstein is a big-time Sims supporter.
Goldstein makes up "facts" to support his case.
Actually, Goldstein has government employees make up data on government time to support his political points.
34. CAO---stepping ALL OVER our civil rights as property owners. Caddish.
35. I was once proud to be a Democrat, and even worked as a volunteer for campaigns. Now, I spit on the memory of each vote I ever cast for them.
36. I'm not dying to move to King County, in fact my family will not spend another dime in King County until the next election for Governor. We don't spend much there as it is, only a few trips a year and Christmas shopping, but we'll be frequenting Pierce County for the time being. I would be willing to add a few dollars if someone wants to organize full page ads in some newspapers to the effect.
37. Saw this article in KC Journal today and just got a kick out of it. I live in the 5th and it is just great to see that the 5th District democrats love this CAO thing. It will continue to insure that they continue to never win another legislative seat here in the awesome 5th.
Gotta go; time for my 11:00 House Training lesson. (whatever that is)
More garbage, but not as stupid as your previous comments about land value...
"Look, with so much land affected, there are certainly going to be times where the regulation is too strict. I am going to guess that KC will modify their general rules on a case by case basis."
First, all of the measures in CAO are very strict and very pervasive! PLEASE READ THE WHOLE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU POST AGAIN.
Second, there was already a GMA in place that was designed to protect rural King County from out of control growth that you compare to South Tacoma. It already contained restrictions that were adequate. Even your home traing expert Ron Sims agreed a few months before CAO was passed that GMA was working properly to control growth and environmental impact in rural areas.
Bottom line, no way to spin it, is CAO was and is WRONG. It was literally passed in the middle of the night by a 7-6 margin by people who don't live or represent rural King County. A section of the County that by themselves do not have the power to remove the 7 people who overstepped their bounds!
The permit fees are outrageous and not fairly applied to others in the County. Even if they decided them on a "case by case" basis as you say the hassle alone is more then others that pay an equal rate of property taxes in suberban areas have to bare.
39. More garbage, but not as stupid as your previous comments about land value...
I like your post, it comes across as very sincere and I take your statement as a complement even if it would be considered as an insult in a normal non-blog conversation.
40. We don't spend much there as it is, only a few trips a year and Christmas shopping, but we'll be frequenting Pierce County for the time being.
Cool. Drive through south of Tacoma around the "Y" road and report back if you are still a fan of anarchist zoning which Pierce County has been following for the last 30 years.
41. We don't spend much there as it is, only a few trips a year and Christmas shopping, but we'll be frequenting Pierce County for the time being.
Cool. Drive through south of Tacoma around the "Y" road and report back if you are still a fan of anarchist zoning which Pierce County has been following for the last 30 years.
Then indicate whether it is the mecca everone believes it is here and wants to implement in KC.
I'm not from King County and I don't live in a rural area. I do have a Home Owner's Association though and I hate it! I hate the concept of someone else telling me what to do with property that I pay for.
I would have a tough time being Cherri Mann too. I would pick all the raspberries I want and need on my land, post lots of BIG No Tresspassing Signs, and carry a loaded shotgun!
Maybe the Builder's Association needs to start an investigation of Ron Sims, he is quite obviously corrupt!
43. I was at the meeting Wed. night so can speak first hand. It was a 5th District Dem. meeting so they had every right to not let any of us speak. Of course that flies in the face of their avowed "every voice should be heard" but...
The woman controlling the mike made it very clear (and somewhat angrily I thought) that we could not speak, even after a voice from a Dem. stated that she wanted to hear what we had to say. I found it interesting that Ch.7 was there filming from about 6:30 on and yet nothing appeared on the news. (Not surprising considering their bias.) I should mention that obviously the press doesn't need to abide by the laws as their SUV was parked the whole time in a handicapped spot.
Erik, I'd love to have a one-on-one with you because you are missing the point. When you pass laws that restrict only one class of people, and leave them no compensation or recourse, that's blatantly immoral and illegal. The King Cty and the State reports both said that the rural areas were being good stewards of the land so this was not needed. They blamed any pollution on the urban areas and they are totally unaffected by this. This law will not stop Cougar or Squak Mountains from being scalped because they are in urban not rural areas. They will stop me from clearing pasture for my horses. They will make me pay $140/hr to some inspector to come out and decide if he'll grant me the privilege of clearing them from my fences. And then he'll decide how much to charge me for a permit.
Do some real research, Erik, don't just read King Ron's propoganda.
I can't believe so many people spend so much time and effort replying to that "Erik" character. He's obviously just yanking your chains and getting a big kick out of it. If King Sims decreed from on high that we should no longer be allowed to breathe because of our dangerous emissions of CO2(the notorious "greenhouse gas" which causes plants and trees to grow), he'd argue why that's a great idea too. He's probably just like all the college students who are receiving help from the government in the form of Pell Grants or student loans, and use their 4 years in college to opine about how evil the government is - the very one paying for their education!
Anyway, the scary thing is that I doubt that anyone can ever "vote Sims out". Incase you haven't been following things, Dean Logan reports to Ron Sims. Ron Sims is ultimately in charge of King County Elections, and we all know what a fine, upstanding bunch they are, right? Why, no shenanigans or chicanery would EVER take place in that tightly-run establishment, now, would it?
45. Oh, and as for Erik, remember the annoying kid in elementary school? If you ignore him, he'll go away.
Too bad that won't work with ron.
I'm with sgmmac. Somebody invite simms over to pick em too.
Erik the pseudo-legal zoning twit dude that thinks he owns Erik. Drag your Erik back to the Capitol Hill zone and let the other Erik be Erik too.
Erik that supposedly stole Erik from Erik. Classic!! I guess we told Erik a thing or two. Think he gets it? I doubt it.
Cindy, right on!
I suggest that instead of thinking in terms of compensation for takings, we focus on overturning the CAO. If we are unable to do that, we are quite sincerely approaching a very serious precipice. More than compensation, we cannot allow the precedent. Please don’t get me wrong, I agree that under a takings framework, compensation is forthcoming, but it would certainly be way too little for way, way too much lost!
We live in a country where things like CAO were not supposed to happen without recourse. The American Constitution and Bill of Rights was created to protect us from this very government intrusion. We used to recognize that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Property ownership (esp real property) is one of them. I'm not a particularly religious person, but I do know that without innate rights people can simply make up or take rights away capriciously and without much effort. They just need a consensus. This is precisely what the "progressive"-liberals aim to do. We cannot let this happen!
The communist progressives insist variously that we stole the land from the Indians and then they insist that it belongs to itself or Gaia or the tooth fairy or whomever, and now it cannot belong to anyone but bugs and tree squirrels. They base it all on a contract-rights model a la Hobbes and similar to European models in effect in places like France, and they sell it to naive people as “environmental stewardship.” I don't know about any of you, but I don't wish to live in France.
Overturn CAO. I will support any efforts with this focus.
Does anyone know what assets SIMMs has? I'd wager he is heavily invested in land.
Ooops I thought that was a bear.
I agree whole heartedly! Overturn CAO!
Whatever assets Ron has, he either owns property that is unaffected by it, or has the necessary 'rat connections to bypass the sort of draconian rules he imposes onto us.
As Teddy Roosevelt once said, "No person owns land to the exclusion of the community to regulate it."
Erik (not the other Erik, but Erik) is right, one person's devalued property because of regulation is probably another person's ideal property. Unless the property is made devoid of value (in which case, you do have a governmental taking according to the U.S. Supreme Court), regulations alter use, but don't effect value. I really doubt anyone will loose money because of the CAO, but if it does proove a problem, it can always be changed. That is, after all, the democratic process.
However, since Stefan stated:
"I don't know what kind of home Ron Sims was trained in, but where I come from, secrecy, dishonesty, suppression of dissent and theft are not the marks of 'Good home training'."
I will point out that this was a party meeting, and the parties should be able to control who attends (its that damn first admendment thingy). That being said, at least Sims didn't try to claim it was something like a Town Hall Meeting and yet screened all the questions and only let in pre-screened people who signed loyalty oaths. But I assume we will hear a screed against G.W. Bush and this Whitehouse's propaganda machine soon. Heck, imagine your problems (and I would join your cries of protest if such a thing happened) if it turned out that Sims was paying off reporters for favorable coverage and planted a ringer in the KC press pool.
50. The truth is many many people stood out in the rain and cold for many days to get the signatures on the three referenda to overturn the CAOs. There were over 17,000 valid signatures collected on each one of the three referenda. By volunteers, NOT paid signature collectors. King ron and his pocket liners Center for environmental Law and Policy, and also along with 1000 friends of Washington, TOGETHER, filed an injunction in court to say the referenda were beyond the scope of referendum power. Judge Palmer Robinson sided with ron and his pocket liners.
The case is headed for State Supreme Court.
If you visit the CAPR web site, www.proprights.org you can contribute to the legal fund. This is but one way to fight.
Even if you do not wish to contribute, the site is worth visiting. Information on the CAOs is easily available there.
If the Democrats want to enact restrictions on our land then let's set up an initiative directly relational and proportional to how they are impacting us. Let’s get Tim Eyman in on this. A people's initiative where any wetlands buffered, Growth Management Act restricted, or CAO limited section of privately held property cannot be taxed. Not reduced taxes as they do now for some areas, let’s get no taxes on it. If it is a business, home, farm, or just plain land; it sits on the property within the area of the restriction, no taxes on the part that is affected. Within one mile from my place this would immediately eliminate over 1 million in tax base which would force the tax burden back onto the reserves and lands of those who are enacting this policy. During a recent Growth management act meeting in Orting the board members dictating the implementation of this act were asked if their lands and homes were affected. Not one was. Fine, lets hear their howling as they scramble to clean up the mess they have caused. Let's hear the politicians mumbling as they try to explain it to those who are unaffected and will shortly have their property taxes increased to cover the loss. I can see a legal battle saying this is exclusionary but the legal statutes they are enacting are already exclusionary and there is legal precedence for reducing taxes for wetlands, buffered property, and similar restricted areas without taking away the land owners property. I just feel if they are removing a significant amount of the tax value they are dependent upon, lets take it all away just as they are taking away the financial potential invested in that land.
I feel this lady's pain as well as how most of you feel (not counting the liberal mouthpieces here) concerning this. Due to the new buffer zone width impacting wetlands (and lakes) as of 1 March my property will be unable to have any building, gardening, home repair, or modification on it. I won’t even be allowed to mow it according to the statutes they have in place. I cannot do anything “to decrease the natural settings of the wetlands”. I can see restrictions in a flood zone, I can see restrictions in a wetland unable to sustain livestock or a building, what I cannot understand is why they restrict a 1 acre hill 15 feet above flood level with a house that has been there for almost 80 years.
Thanks, I appreciate your efforts and I want to help.
I agree with you that Simms has the right to meet with his constituents without interference.
However, your arguments respecting Government Takings and diminution of property values are supercilious, self contradictory, and counterintuitive. Teddy Roosevelt never meant to say that any regulation of property under imminent domain was all right to the exclusion of any property based on any justification. He was far too smart to pose such an idiotic constitutional contradiction as you suggest.
If “one person's devalued property because of regulation is probably another person's ideal property” it can only be desirable because the latter devalued the property through regulation to achieve their own aims, not those of the public at large. The objectives of the CAO may be narrowly debatable but your construction is desultory. Read your history. The inevitable consequence of un-checked regulation is revolution. I don’t know what case law you are referring to, but your premise that a property must be made “devoid of value,” in order to constitute a government taking is utterly false.
Anyone silly enough to say that they “doubt anyone will loose money because of the CAO,” is just being insulting and is not worth listening to. Go ahead and invent some more meaningless foolishness but don’t pretend it isn’t seen for what it is. By the way Mickey Mouse said, “Hi boys and girls.”
OK Mark, Now you've gone and done it. You've chosen to invoke the dreaded Eyeman!
The (second to) last resort of those under a despot, the Initiate process shines like a crucifix to political vampires like Simms.
If a Bald Eagle should nest on your (rural) property, the government can declare it a wildlife refuge and forbid your use I up to & including evicting from it!
What say we impose (through the initiative process) some parity - Then watch as a Bald Eagle lands on the new Seattle Public Library!
Dear Mr. Foolishness:
Justice Scalia, in his majority opinion in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council stated (505 U.S. 1003 (1992) stated:
We have, however, described at least two discrete categories of regulatory action as compensable without case-specific inquiry into the public interest advanced in support of the restraint. The first encompasses regulations that compel the property owner to suffer a physical "invasion" of his property. In general (at least with regard to permanent invasions), no matter how minute the intrusion, and no matter how weighty the public purpose behind it, we have required compensation. The second situation in which we have found categorical treatment appropriate is where regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land.
This is not a physical invasion of the land (for which you must be compensated), but a claimed regulatory taking. As Justice Scalia stated, otherwise you must deny "all economically beneficial or productive use," and the CAO does not do this.
"The inevitable consequence of un-checked regulation is revolution." Do you have a cite for that? Plus, where do we have un-checked regulation? Perhaps the regulation are not wise, in which case they should be changed. Un-checked anything is probably a bad idea, perhaps we can agree with that.
I find the persons statement that she can only let her dog run on less than half her land, and that she has to pay $800 to pick raspberries questionable. I know of no law that would prevent her from allowing her dog on every inch of her property, given the normal regulations any dog owner on any property must obey (and, having lived in a rural area, I noted most of the people their never really cared about the regulations anyway). If you have a few canes of raspberries in your personal garden, I again know of no laws that would reguire permitting or anything else. Now, if you have two acres under cultivation for a farm or a "U-pick" farm, there is probably some permitting required. However, this would have nothing to do with the CAO.
55. NOT, why doesn't anyone who has one of these buffers, CAO infringements, or protective zones go immediately down and seek the tax reduction for loss of use to their property. I made sure I did when I found out about it. Reduced my land taxes by about 18%. Multiple that by 10000 and I bet you'll see a whole lot of howling, even without getting Eyman involved.
This response is more for those interested in a serious discussion of the CAO issues.
The Washington State “Thousand Friends” CAO amounts to nothing less than a constitutional inversion of imminent domain. Through the thin pretext of seemingly reasonable sounding and appearing environmental concerns it poses to justify a Marxist/Leninist approach to property ownership. Anyone incapable of apprehending the significance of ownership interest restriction as a seizure of legitimate ownership is either an idiot or an imposter and they are on the opposite side of the issue.
Lucas v. South Carolina, is fundamentally inapt to the current discussion of the so-called “CAO” in Washington State. Rather than citing the parts of a quotation or a case law holding that JDB likes the sound of, he might read the whole thing and think a little.
In short, though Lucas is utterly irrelevant, it is instructive.
The obvious distinction between the two situations lays bare recognition of the legal fiddle-stix ("Best Available Science") used to fashion the Washington State CAO. The sine qua non of the Lucas case and most especially Scalia’s opinion was the rationale underlying the “Act” at issue.
The issue of compensation hinged on the validity of the act under which the supposed “taking was anticipated.” Central to Scalia’s analysis is the fact that “upon purchase of the property the plaintiff knew that the new construction in the coastal zone--such as petitioner intended--[and it] threatened [the] public resource . . .” At stake in Lucas was imminent danger of collapse and harm to humans and property. Here it involves a government seizure of control for its own sake.
In the real world, Critical areas are just that, “critical.” Protecting bugs and wildlife that may or may not inevitably perish of natural evolution is not a “critical” basis for prohibition but an obstinate excuse to seize property in the name of radical environmentalism.
The only supposedly threatened resource at stake in King County is an overly-sweeping collective attempt to seize ownership through control of the "environment." If you are for that, fine, we have nothing more to talk about. I’m not. At this point, to the extent that the Washington State CAO is not challenged or overturned it is unchecked. Environmental issues–at least at this point in time—are not reasonably legitimate interests sufficient for such regulatory seizures.
Read your history. The inevitable consequence of un-checked regulation is revolution. Otherwise, make up some more stuff.
57. For the sake of technical accuracy and to clarify my last post. When I spoke of "regulation" with respect to CAO, I meant regulation in the broad general sense rather than the strict legal sense. The CAO is legislative rather than administrative in nature and this distinction is key to the disposition of the current Initiative overturning the CAO. Overturn the CAO!