Rob McKenna ran for Attorney General in order to be the "people's lawyer". He seems to be making good on that promise. In recent weeks he's filed two amicus briefs with the Supreme Court, defending the people against out-of-control government:
1. McKenna is siding with rural King County residents who seek to file a ballot initiative challenging the Critical Areas Ordinance.
2. McKenna is also defending I-776 and urging the Supreme Court to prohibit Sound Transit from collecting its unlawful car tab tax.
Rob McKenna is speaking at the Downtown Seattle Republican Club dinner meeting next Monday, September 19th. Space is still available. RSVP today (email me: theshark .AT. usefulwork .DOT. com)!
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 14, 2005 12:40 PM | Email ThisMaybe it's time for Washington State property owners to take up the Oregon initiative.
Rob Mckenna might make an interesting candidate for Govenor in the future.
Posted by: sgmmac on September 14, 2005 01:36 PMGood speaker so it should be a good get together.
Posted by: swatter on September 14, 2005 02:13 PMLet's give em a clue with I912 passing, Sim's losing, and a real election with legal voters!
A rather novel approach to democracy!
Posted by: GS on September 14, 2005 04:17 PMThe people of this state need to know that these issues are still unresolved. (as much as the liberal Democrats love to create the *perception* that these rules, fees and ordinances are set in stone and the little people can do nothing to stop them!) Voters need to know *now* that there is someone in authority who is looking out for their interests!
Rob McKenna - by his actions against these issues - makes a loud statement for the people! Citizens will see this and say "Hey! It's not a done deal?" "We can still fight this?" This can change the mood of the people from hopeless and complacent to inspired and motivated to regain their rights once again!.
And we all know what happens when the people feel empowered......
Posted by: Deborah on September 14, 2005 05:48 PMThat's two wheel barrel fulls out of the Stygian Stables of Olympia.
Posted by: JCM on September 15, 2005 07:25 AMHe was part of the development machine then, and his opposition to the CAO is no doubt driven by those old loyalties today.
Now if he decided to investigate the corruption in King County DOT or DDES to defend the taxpayers from billions of dollars in subsidies that we're being forced to pay, then maybe that would show me something.
I'll expect that when hell freezes over.
Posted by: Mike on September 15, 2005 08:07 AMNotice how much little bad press ST is getting these days? Probably all head-nodders on ST. Don't you agree?
I know a couple on the board and I wouldn't trust them to take out my garbage without screwing it up.
Posted by: swatter on September 15, 2005 09:46 AM"Taking without taking" - what kind of nonsense is that. Property owners everywhere accept limits on their ability to use their property. Those limits are imposed through the democratic process based on what communities (such as King County) deem are in their best interest. The limits also change over time - sometimes becoming more restrictive and sometimes less. The notion of absolute property rights is a myth - it never existed and cannot exist if we are going to live in anything approaching a civil society.
Posted by: Leslie on September 15, 2005 01:27 PMNo one ever claimed an absolute right. Parity would be nice however.
I appreciate the irony of urban dwellers who have had the opportunity to develop 100% of their property, and then tsk tsk anyone who would dare complain about an arrogant and indifferent (county) government denying them use of a third or more of their property.
"I got mine - screw you!"
Posted by: alphabet soup on September 15, 2005 01:50 PMWalt...it's not about protecting the environment or overbuilding. Federal statutes only allow development in areas cleary defined by local authorities. Let's say you purchased a 3 bedroom house, but after you move in you are informed that 3 bdrms are no longer allowed? Now not only do you only have a two bdrm house that no longer fits your needs, but you are still being taxed for a 3 bdrm home. After your purchase and against your wishes, a portion of your property is no longer available for your use, your property value may be less, but you are still required to pay the higher tax rate.
Posted by: dl on September 15, 2005 02:14 PMDemocratic process? Hah. Ever heard of the Growth Management Hearings Boards? Ever elect those members? Ever been impacted by one of their rulings? Ever try to overturn one of their decisions?
Gimme a friggin' break. Whether it's King Co's CAO, the GMA Boards or the City of New London, CT, properties rights have been under attack by elected officials, un-elected bureaucrats and environmental zealots for quite some time. And a lot of people have had quite enough, thank you.
Posted by: jimg on September 15, 2005 03:30 PMI remember a conversation about 10 years ago with a Wildlife agent about buffers. A 25 foot buffer was good to protect the stream in the urban area, but he was demanding 75 feet in a stream that never had any fish- ever. As we got to jawing, he got wilder and wilder. From 75 feet, he went to 100 feet, then 200 feet, then 300 feet until he finally admitted that there should be no development.
Hmm, I could pay the taxes and live over in the tent cities.
Posted by: Ted Bundy on September 15, 2005 04:11 PMInteresting to see a socialist posting here. You seem to think that the 'best interests' of communities trump individual property rights. Of course, you couldn't be more wrong about the history of Western law and economics, but why let history and facts get in your way?
"The limits also change over time - sometimes becoming more restrictive and sometimes less." Very true. Each time the restrictions on private property increase, the value of said property decreases. This is a fact. You can try to argue this, but you'll only end up looking foolish.
Enter in the CAO - which places restrictions on 65% of rural landowners property in King County (while we urban dwellers can do whatever we damn well please on 100% of our property). Most people purchased their 10 acres knowing that they could use ALL 10 acres - now they can only use 3.5 acres. Does that devalue their land? Absolutely. Have they been compensated for this devaluation by the county? Not a chance. Is this fair? Maybe according to you, but you're a socialist - remember?
dl's example is perfectly appropriate. Imagine that you bought a 3-bedroom house in the city, then the city passed an ordinance that two of your bedrooms had to remain in their 'natural state' (the state that they were in when the law was passed). You can't paint them, you can't rearrange the furniture, put in or take out carpeting, nor anything else. If one of the bedrooms burns to a cinder, you can't even replace it. Would this devalue your 3-bedroom house? Absolutely - right? What's different about the CAO?
With the CAO, King County just devalued the land of thousands of private property owners without due compensation for the devaluation of their property. This is a 'taking with a taking' - and it's not nonsense. If the county wants to put in a highway, they have to pay you fair market value if they want to buy all or part of your property so that they can use it (or not use it) as they please. But they're allowed to restrict usage (not zoning, remember) of private property without taking it?
Where do you live, Leslie? In Seattle? How would you feel if you couldn't determine the use of 65% of YOUR property? Want a flower bed next summer? Sorry. Want to plant a small garden? Nope. Want to add a deck on, or put in a path through your yard? You're already using 35% of your property, so you can't. Is this really the path to your definition of a civil society?
Posted by: Larry on September 15, 2005 05:22 PM
I guess he wouldn't be on it now anyway. The reason he wasn't re-upped was that Sims wanted yes men on the Board, and McKenna is not one of those.
You don't need to be zoned for business to run one out of your home, as long as you meet certain criteria. I converted my spare bedroom into an office and run my side business out of there.
Whether someone would want to run one out of the dump you described is a different story (personally, if I were a potential client and saw the place, I'd run like hell).
Posted by: Mike H on September 15, 2005 07:48 PMThe 1000 Friends of Washington, now Futurewise, are the root of all evil against private property owners and will not rest until development is completely halted in our state. These wacko environmentalists must be stopped if any of us are to live in the state that’s population continues to grow despite all the freaking liberals. They proclaim to have the best science and will fabricate “facts” to substantiate their fiction. They are working against growth and won’t rest until it’s stopped.
Thank GOD for AG McKenna to take a stance against these out of control environmentalist.
When McKenna decides to find out why Seattle police officers killed Perry Manley on FEDERAL property is when I'll believe he's the people's AG.
When McKenna decides to find out why the Brame autopsy reports have still not been released to the public is when I'll believe he's the people's AG.
When McKenna orders Risk Management and his own deputy AGs to try to settle tort claims instead of formally litigating everything is when I'll believe he's the people's AG.
I hope I don't have to wait until pigs fly.
platypus
Posted by: platypus on September 15, 2005 08:35 PM"When McKenna goes after the gestapo thugs at Division of Child Support is when I'll believe he's the people's AG.
"When McKenna decides to find out why Seattle police officers killed Perry Manley on FEDERAL property is when I'll believe he's the people's AG.
"When McKenna decides to find out why the Brame autopsy reports have still not been released to the public is when I'll believe he's the people's AG.
"When McKenna orders Risk Management and his own deputy AGs to try to settle tort claims instead of formally litigating everything is when I'll believe he's the people's AG.
I hope I don't have to wait until pigs fly."
Yo, Plat. He's been in office 8.5 months.
Take a deep breath.
I do live in Seattle and my 6000 sq ft lot is subject to many restrictions, including a limit on how much of I can build on, set backs and height restrictions. The notion that urban property owners can do what they want with their property whereas rural oweners cannot is false. Both property owners live with restrictions and the restrictions are imposed through a democratic process. The restrictions do get less strict in certain circumstances (for example, my neighborhood has experienced an "up zone" where the height limits on nearby properties were increased, thus allowing property owners to build taller buildings). The GMA and other land use regulations weren't foisted on Washington by an act of god - the democratically legislature enacted them. The restrictions have helped encouraged responsible growth which is for the long term benefit of all of the citizens of our state.
Posted by: Leslie on September 15, 2005 10:11 PMYeah...But I'll bet you can pick blackberries without a permit! Don't you wish you could just move to the country and have a beautiful view without height restrictions? (OOPS! I guess that American dream has been dashed for the sake of some unrealistic Socialist/communist nightmare!)
Leslie,
You have a limited view of home and land ownership. Your interpretation of Democratic process is laughable! And very revealing of your socialist bent.
"Both property owners live with restrictions and the restrictions are imposed through a democratic process."
Are you joking? There was nothing Democratic about the process of imposing these oppressive restrictions on rural land owners! The people were not allowed to vote on this and the liberal Democrat legislature sold out to rabid enviro special interests! Why? Because our state is currently plagued with liberal Democrats - many who were elected with the aid of fraud and corruption. That *party* is now the home of socialist and communists and bears no resemblance to the Democrat party of old! There is nothing *Democratic* about these oppressive laws! Other than they share the name *democrat*.
You chose to live in *density* - many others find that life style undesirable. Your density creates an enviromental nightmare among other things. Rural landowners take care of their properties and generally enjoy the beauty of nature. You live in a concrete jungle. Apples and oranges.
You really have to get a new script! People just aren't falling for the old scare tactics. Our state's population mainly runs along a thin line of interstate. There is no threat of the population ever taking over any substantial land area here - outside of those thin lines. It is those in favor of density who are building like mad in rural areas. It is those with your ideology who are actually ruining our lands. Building 32 homes on 2 acre plots! We moved to Kent to be away from the madness of density. We love the natural beauty here. But Ron Sims can't stand a meadow! He has to destroy it and build another dense community! He can't stand stream without modifying it! He is a menace to nature and so are those who think like you. It's all about power and taxes and revenue under the guise of some bogus enviromental concern!
Posted by: Deborah on September 15, 2005 11:26 PMDo you know in which State the current Governor was previously the AG and previously was Director of Ecology? Do you know she doubled the budget of that department under her reign before moving on to AG and Governor? It was under that reign that she sometimes had her AGs ignore court cases because they "were too busy".
Let's put some of the blame where it belongs on the King County mess.
Posted by: swatter on September 16, 2005 07:44 AMYou're right, of course. So as of now, I'm holding my breath.
However, if I turn blue then it's all your fault.
platypus
Posted by: platypus on September 16, 2005 10:00 AM