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.Sims tried to control the meeting by taking questions only from Democrats. But even that attempt to crush dissent backfired:``It's not your land; it's our land,'' they yelled. ``Tell the truth, Ron.'' ``Good house training, Ron.''
a curve ball was thrown when the final question was asked by a woman who turned out to be a Democrat no longer.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``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.''
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.
Cid
Posted by: CidinDupont on February 17, 2005 05:14 PMI 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!!!!
Posted by: Confused on February 17, 2005 05:15 PMToo 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.
Posted by: Erik on February 17, 2005 05:40 PMThe fact is that her property values have likely skyrocketed over the last 15 years and now may go up a little more slowly.
Big deal.
Posted by: Erik on February 17, 2005 05:44 PMIt'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?
Posted by: Jason on February 17, 2005 05:49 PMThis is a perfect example of the totatitarian nature of the so-called "progressives" that control the entire state ar
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 17, 2005 06:00 PM"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.
Posted by: Larry on February 17, 2005 06:06 PMYour 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?
Posted by: Shaun on February 17, 2005 06:18 PMThis is just one more nail in the coffin of the liberals of Washington state.
Posted by: Jim in Clark County on February 17, 2005 06:25 PMProperty 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.
Posted by: dave on February 17, 2005 06:38 PMI 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?
Posted by: Jason on February 17, 2005 06:39 PMZoning 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."
Big deal.
- Erik
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!
Posted by: Joe on February 17, 2005 06:54 PMI 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.
Posted by: Erik on February 17, 2005 07:33 PMI understand why it works for him...I don't understand why you want to participate.
Posted by: South County on February 17, 2005 07:34 PMObviously 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.
Posted by: Erik on February 17, 2005 07:58 PMIts 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.
Posted by: Erik on February 17, 2005 08:14 PMThen 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.
Posted by: Erik on February 17, 2005 08:27 PMI 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 !
Posted by: KS on February 17, 2005 08:58 PMThat's not really a fair measure. The dying want to move to KC so they can vote eternally.
Posted by: feedatroll on February 17, 2005 09:06 PMMore 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."
-Erik
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.
Joe,
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.
Posted by: Erik on February 18, 2005 01:29 AMCool. 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.
Posted by: Erik on February 18, 2005 01:32 AMCool. 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.
Posted by: Erik on February 18, 2005 01:34 AMI 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!
Posted by: sgmmac on February 18, 2005 06:34 AMAnyway, 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?
Posted by: Scott on February 18, 2005 08:17 AMI 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.
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.
Posted by: Not Erik on February 18, 2005 10:29 AMErik (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.
Posted by: JDB on February 18, 2005 10:39 AM
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.
JDB,
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.”
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!
Posted by: The not-ness of Erik on February 18, 2005 01:22 PMJustice 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.
Posted by: JDB on February 18, 2005 01:24 PMThis 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.