Summary

This proposed charter amendment would provide enhanced protection for 96 named properties (some 156,000 acres) of open space land that is either owned by King County or for which the County holds a conservation easement.  The King County Council placed the Open Space Preservation Amendment on the ballot based on last year’s recommendation of the King County Charter Review Commission.

The proposed Open Space Amendment (OSA) would prohibit changes in the sale, transfer or allowable use, of the named open space lands, however, it does allow for a small number of exceptions, including transfers between governmental agencies, utility projects, and habitat restoration.  The specific properties protected by the amendment were chosen for their high conservation value in safeguarding the county’s many natural resources, habitat, recreation opportunities, and rural economy.  These lands are open spaces intended to be left in their natural state in perpetuity and include large forests and wetlands acquired for low-impact recreation, forestry and habitat value.  All listed properties are outside the designated urban growth boundary.

The King County Council could remove lands from the adopted inventory only by a super-majority of seven votes out of the nine council members.  When considering such an action, 28 days must elapse between introduction and adoption of the proposed ordinance, a public hearing must be held in the vicinity of the affected property, and specific findings must be made concerning the rationale for adoption.  A super-majority vote would likewise be required to add lands to the list, such as recently acquired conservation lands.  The proposed amendment strengthens protections against the sale or transfer of protected properties by the County.

King County already owns the proposed OSA-protected land or the development rights to the land, and there are no direct costs associated with the proposed charter amendment.


ARGUMENTS FOR THE MEASURE

The proponents of the measure made the following arguments in support of the measure:

•    A Charter amendment is needed in order to add the additional protection of a super-majority vote of the Council to conservation lands already owned by the county.
•    The population of Central Puget Sound is expected to double to more than 7 million people over the next 100 years. Development pressure on King County land will only continue to increase, as will the demand for locally produced food, fiber and timber.  A Charter amendment provides a check to changes in county leadership, different political climates, alterations in growth management law, and other forces that could undermine current open space protections.
•    The proposed amendment ensures transparency for the public in any attempt to remove properties from the protected list and thus enhances the protection of natural spaces—more than existing deed restrictions that might be overturned in a court of law.
•    These properties were acquired over a long period of time with a variety of funding sources (including Forward Thrust, Conservation Futures and Open Space Bonds), all with the intent that they were to be held in perpetuity as open space.  This amendment ties the properties together and ensures that varying underlying restrictions cannot cause conflicting interpretations.
•    The King County Farmlands Preservation Program (FPP), a similar program to the OSA, has been successfully operating since 1979. The program permanently protects more than 13,000 acres of county farmland, and requires a public vote to remove a farm from protection. In the 30-year history of the FPP, the protected properties have withstood all challenges and legal battles.
•    While there is no known provision in a county charter elsewhere that is similar to the OSA, King County has long been a leader in innovative ways to protect the natural environment. The county has been recognized for developing new approaches to environmental challenges.
•    The OSA does not change the ownership or use of a property, but rather protects the current use. There would be no change in how residents or businesses currently use or manage these lands.
•    The conservation-oriented funding sources used to acquire these properties allow for a range of activities and management practices on the land. The OSA creates no extra layer of approval for these activities.
•    Along with this higher level of protection, the OSA has been crafted to provide government with the flexibility to conduct normal business and confront emergency situations. It is not intended to restrict any actions the County may need to take to protect the public, comply with state or federal law, supply public utilities, or perform habitat restoration.
•    The proposal achieved bipartisan support with a 9-0 Council adoption.


ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MEASURE

There is no known opposition to this measure, however, committee members developed the following arguments:

•    The proposed amendment is unnecessary.  All of the listed properties are already protected by the terms of their original funding and by existing deed restrictions.
•    This is a feel-good measure whose purpose is to reinforce public and political sentiment.  There is no immediate problem being addressed here.
•    The super-majority threshold may be appropriate for protecting natural lands from change in use, but it should not also be applied for adding lands to the protected list.  This is a burdensome and unrealistic threshold to impose.
•    The proposed amendment attempts to establish an already strongly held public value as a Charter protection similar to constitutional protections granted to basic human rights.  It is not appropriate to offer such protection to a designated land use that might require change over time as community needs change.
•    This proposal is designed to make it more difficult for County government and the public to make what may well be reasonable, or necessary, decisions in a future that cannot be accurately foretold. It represents an excessively high threshold for legislative action.
•    The amendment represents an untested policy that may have unintended consequences in the future.  It is an experiment that has no precedent in how far it reaches.


RECOMMENDATION and RATIONALE

The Municipal League supports the Open Space Amendment. 

Municipal League members debated whether this amendment is really needed given existing deed restrictions and the underlying strong public support for protection of open space and natural lands in King County.  However, we concluded that on balance the amendment reinforces the intent and protection of natural lands.  Population and development pressures in the coming decades will continue to create pressure for elected officials to allow changes in use of protected lands.  This amendment would create procedural steps and public scrutiny for any such changes in the future, ensuring public debate and public involvement in major decisions regarding our public lands, rather than allowing private lawsuits and the courts to decide how open-space uses might be changed.