The Municipal League of King County
Opposes
Initiative 933
Concerning Government Regulation of Private Property
November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot
SUMMARY
Initiative 933 is a measure sponsored by the Washington Farm Bureau that would “require
government agencies to consider the effects and alternatives to regulating private property.
Compensation would be required when regulations are enforced that damage private property use
or value…” (from the Ballot Measure Summary). Private property is defined under the act as all
real and personal property including mineral and water rights. The use or value of property is
defined as legally permitted uses as of January 1, 1996, except restrictions that apply equally
to all properties within a jurisdiction, and that prevent immediate threats to health or safety,
including harm from fire, earthquakes or flooding.
Prior to enacting any new regulation, a government entity would have to document:
- which private properties would be affected;
- the existence and extent of the legitimate purpose of the action;
- the extent to which the action would deprive property owners of economic uses of the property;
- estimated compensation that would need to be paid under the act; and
- alternative means such as voluntary cooperation that might accomplish the purpose.
The measure also requires that government entities “pay or waive” when enforcing or applying a regulation.
This means that the agency must either compensate the property owner for the decrease in fair market value
of the property caused by the regulation or it must waive the regulation. Compensation must include costs
and attorneys fees incurred by the property owner.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE MEASURE
The proponents of Initiative 933 made the following arguments for the measure:
- Under the Growth Management Act and other land use laws and regulations of state
and local government, the rights to economic use of private property have been
repeatedly restricted in the past ten years.
- Often such restrictions have exceeded reasonable public purposes and have denied
property owners the use of their property without consideration for loss of value.
- Rights granted by the U.S. and State Constitutions to prohibit government from taking
private property without compensation have been trampled.
- The Farm Bureau and other property advocates have been working with the legislative
process since the early 1990s to achieve protections for property owners but have had
to resort to the initiative because the Legislature has failed to act.
- There are many examples of government over-reaching by excessive regulation: in King
County some property owners are required to leave 65% of their land in native vegetation;
Jefferson County has proposed buffers of up to 450 feet along streams, wetlands and waterfronts;
growth hearings boards have upheld orders in Ferry and Stevens Counties to protect wildlife
habitat for wildlife that is either not present in the area or that is not endangered and
that is abundant; in Bellevue property owners can be fined up to $12,000 for removing trees
on their own property without permission from the city.
- Such selected examples could be adopted anywhere in the state—it is time to tell
government to follow the Constitution.
- Government should be required to try voluntary, cooperative ways of protecting the environment.
Many property owners are happy to enter into conservation programs for the good of the community
if given the opportunity, but will resist prescriptive approaches that harm them economically.
- Governments should have to consider the cost of new regulations and the impact on property
owners before adopting new restrictions.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MEASURE
Arguments against the measure were articulated by the opponents of I-933:
- This measure takes a “meat cleaver” approach to a complex set of laws and regulations that has evolved over decades and that is designed to advance good development and protect our quality of life.
- While I-933 claims to protect property owners from unfair takings of private property for public use, it is actually silent on this issue and instead attacks a very wide range of good regulations.
- The initiative claims to protect the economic use of farms and other small land owners, but actually affects the government’s ability to regulate any tangible and intangible property, including personal property and intangibles such as conservation easements and mineral and water rights.
- Our land use and zoning systems have been developed to protect the rights of neighbors not just property owners. Under this initiative an owner could put up a large billboard next to his property line or block a neighbor’s view and require compensation if the government disallowed such uses.
- The “pay or waive” provisions of the measure are ambiguous and could invite massive litigation and greatly increase permitting battles.
- I-933 would create unintended consequences that are incalculable at this point because courts would spend years handing down individual decisions interpreting the new law.
- The administrative costs of processing tens of thousands of property claims, many of which would be specious, would be huge. The Association of Washington Cities has calculated a cost of $1500 to $2000 per year for each Washington household.
- It is true that there have been over-reaching and excessive regulation by some government entities. But such instances require surgical, carefully tailored solutions, not this massive attack on all regulation.
- The U.S. and State Constitutions already protect property owners against “takings” by government and already require fair compensation. This measure advances an extreme property rights philosophy, one that would protect individual property interests at the expense of the general public good. Most citizens do not share this philosophy.
POSITION AND RATIONALE
The Trustees of the Municipal League oppose Initiative 933.
The Municipal League heard with sympathy the frustration of the initiative proponents
over some of the examples of excessive regulations they cited. Trustees agreed that
such examples of government heavy-handedness excite public anger and exacerbate anti-government
sentiment.
Nevertheless, the League concluded that this measure goes too far. Instead of a carefully
constructed solution to the problem of regulatory impacts on individual property owners, the
measure takes a very wide-ranging approach to all land use law and zoning powers of government.
Although the proponents state that I-933 is based on constitutional protections for property
rights, the Initiative would require compensation in a wide variety of situations where compensation
could not be recovered under Federal or State constitutional claims. I-933 attempts to shift
the balance between individual property rights and the community's more general interests drastically
toward a specific narrow meaning of 'private property' that is not widely accepted among Washington
citizens. I-933 would weaken the collective efforts to manage growth and protect the environment
in favor of a dominant emphasis on individual property rights. Further, the measure would create a
rigid framework for enforcing these expanded individual property rights and would strip lawmakers and
officials of the discretion to balance competing individual and community interests. The costs to
the public in terms of time, effort, legal battles and administrative burdens would be high.
The League was also sympathetic to the many years of good faith, but unsuccessful efforts by the
initiative proponents to make their case in the legislative process. The initiative process exists
to create avenues of redress in such instances. We agreed that there is a legitimate concern at the
heart of this initiative and that it should be addressed by the legislature and governor working
closely with stakeholder groups.
|
