The Washington Supreme Court today issued an unsound ruling in the eminent domain case of [un]Sound Transit v. Kenneth Miller.
A Tacoma couple lost their court fight Thursday to keep Sound Transit from seizing their property to build a commuter rail station.Charlie Klinge, who represented the Millers, said in a statement:The ruling could have broader implications for the power of government in Washington state to seize private property by eminent domain. The state Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, said it generally does not referee disputes when a government agency needs to seize property. The court also said a Web site posting was enough notice of a meeting on taking the couple’s land
This is basically the Kelo decision on the local level ...
... Our State Constitution says that public use and necessity in a condemnation lawsuit, "shall be a judicial question" "without regard to any legislative assertion", and Justice Fairhurst with four others says that the courts are bound by, "the high level of deference we accord legislative bodies in making necessity determinations."... the State Supreme Court majority destroyed a previously held Constitutional right. Government can take your private property even when the condemnation process is corrupted by falsehoods, threats to community leaders, and other arbitrary and capricious actions. For over a century, the Washington courts protected the citizens from arbitrary government condemnation actions, but no more."
Quoting the first few words of ours...
=============================
Washington State Constitution
PREAMBLE
We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution.
ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
... Etc.
=============================
Argh! Why can't they understand this? Or do they, and they don't agree with it. Ahh, perhaps I have found the key.
Posted by: Jeremy on February 17, 2006 02:46 PMThe judges who voted in the majority should be ashamed of themselves. Not for the first time.
Posted by: Matt from Olympia on February 17, 2006 04:08 PMAbout 15 years ago, a property owner in a City, who owned a business in the City, lived and voted in the City and did business in the City, sued the City over some zoning code revisions. Whether the guy was right or wrong, you can decide, but, it was tossed out at the Appeals Court judges because the guy didn't have "standing".
Standing means the individual must have an interest or business with the outcome, in short.
So, if someone lives and breathes in a jurisdiction is not allowed to have a judge hear his complaints, then who does? This ruling just opened the doors for government takings, etc.
Posted by: tradersmith on February 17, 2006 04:11 PMTake a gander at what the city of Olympia is trying to pull off:
http://wria17.blogspot.com/2006/02/play-for-brewerys-water-shocks-cities.html
If Olympia gets away with this, any water right becomes fair game for a municipality bumping up against the maximum use of the rights it already has. If the easiest way to get additional water rights is to condemn a water right holder's property, do you think there are many cities who will put in an application at the Department of Ecology and wait a decade or more before it is even considered?
Apply for a water right the Department of Ecology almost certainly won't grant when you can condemn a private property owner's land instead?
That this court would rule contrary to law is not surprising, it is expected. They are liberals, and, by extension, in judicial matters, criminals.
What is disappointing is that they could do it, in Barbara Madsen's case, with the ENDORSEMENT OF THE KING COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY hierarchy, though, obviously, not an endorsement ever submitted to the grassroots PCOs for approval. When the endorsement was issued it was already clear what kind of judge Madsen was and would continue to be.
The ongoing endorsement of candidates that have no affinity for Republican principles, as well as opposition of real, principled, Republican candidates is pragmatic “business as usual” for the Michael Young administration.
Home to John “Chambers Creek” Ladenburg and Julie “Qutee-Pie” Anderson... the new Sound Transit Czar’s from Pierce County. They will make Ron Sims Sound Transit spending spree look like an amateur out drinking on New Years Eve.
Remember they are building this station so they can extend the Tacoma Link...at a cost of $32,000 per INCH!!!
(shark said)
"Even though 14 of 23 Republicans joined all 26 Democrats to pass the bill in the Senate"
Over half of the republicans in The Senate voted for it?
Someone defend these RINOs because I see no defense for this sell-out!
I have lost my patience with this party and think that we either need a serious house cleaning or be prepared for perminent minority status.
Posted by: jaybo on February 18, 2006 08:39 AM