That would be hope-n-change in a good way:
Rural property owners who fought a King County law severely restricting how much land they can clear have won a huge victory.The state Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to review an appeals-court decision that struck down the law as an improper tax or fee on development. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander signed an order in which he and four other justices unanimously denied the county's petition for review of the Court of Appeals ruling.
The clearing restrictions, part of a package that includes the Critical Areas Ordinance, require rural property owners to keep native vegetation on 50 to 65 percent of their land, depending on its size. They were adopted as a way of protecting streams and wildlife, including the threatened chinook salmon.
Steve Hammond, president of the Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights, said the order "puts the nail in the coffin" of the most controversial element in the critical-areas package.
Funny thing, it turns out policy that amounts to a taking of 50% - 65% of someone's property isn't all that legal in the end. Note also the unanimous nature of the court's decision.
I will NEVER live in King County.
Posted by: Andy on March 5, 2009 08:39 AMHey buddy. I have medical stocks... It's going down so fast I won't even have any change left. )-:
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 5, 2009 09:51 AMGeithner has no senior level staff. Those rascally Republicans again? Er, no; boy genius hasn't submitted any names- he is too busy going toe to toe with Limbaugh and losing to the Ruskies.
Ready for impeachment Democrats? You run the show.
Posted by: swatter on March 5, 2009 10:00 AMIf the Supremes had overturned this Appeals Court decision, it would have taken us even MUCH further down the road to total ''government ownership of land and the means of production''. IMO a lot of people failed to fully appreciate what a fundamental frontal attack on private property that this outrageous action by the Soviet Socialist Republic of King County amounted to. It's been pretty obvious for some time that ''nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation'' means nothing to the far-left big-government types that run the SSRKC.
Posted by: Methow Ken on March 5, 2009 10:07 AMThe Times article says they might make private landowners do environmental studies (and pay for them), but that could be challenged in court.
Posted by: Palouse on March 5, 2009 10:50 AMI laughed my butt off at the quote from the DDES about a "one size fits all restriction on clearing limits to make the process less onerous on property owners". We built two houses in KC in the last 5 years, which included getting a snootful of DDES's "processes". Waiting 3-5 months for a building permit, while babysitting every step of the process. Fees and restrictions galore, my favorite of which was a requirement for permit issuance to build a 700 ft long, 4 ft tall, wildlife passable fence around our small wetlands, made big by the 60 ft buffer, including 4ft. treated posts with wetland signs. The wetlands are within our 6.5 deeply wooded CAO area, on private property. Who exactly was going to see these signs? Tresspassers? When I asked DDES if it was okay to clear a 5 ft. wide tract along the 700 ft. fenceline of my unclearable 65% of my property, so I could get my truck through to build the fence, I was suddenly told that this requirement, which I had in writing, wasn't required. The backpedaling was almost worth the hassle.
Oh, I have to give a big kudos to Steve Hammond. When he was our councilman, he was approachable, quick to respond and extremely helpful. Regan Dunn? Not so much. Huge mistake, losing him as a rep, but grateful to have him working for rural landowners.
Posted by: BrassTax on March 5, 2009 11:16 AMI was happy with letting them remain in native vegetation, but if Ron Sims and his band of useful idiots tell me I HAVE to do it, then it was probably a bad idea.
I'll have firewood for the next 5 years!
Posted by: johnny on March 6, 2009 12:55 PM