When, oh when, will Eric end this Ahab-like fixation on the takings ballot measures?
Don’t hold your breath.
Yesterday, Washington’s Office of Financial Management released estimates of the financial impact of Initiative 933. It’s not pretty. Analysts are ballparking the costs to taxpayers at between $7.3 and $9 billion over the next six years.
I won’t get into the technical details today—partly because I haven’t studied the analysis carefully yet. But scary as that $8 billion price tag may be, I actually think it’s a low-ball conservative figure. For one thing, the estimate doesn’t include any costs of claims dealing with personal property. (I-933, alone among the rash of takings initiatives, explicitly deals with both real estate and personal property, including stocks, bonds, contracts, livestock, vehicles, etc. Yes, I know, it’s mind-boggling.)
The best media coverage was in the Seattle Times.
Other coverage in the Seattle P-I and the Olympian (where I’m quoted).
Dan
Eric,There are two sets of figgers to look at. The numbers you gave are an estimate of the costs of paying the claims, based on x, y, and z. The second, more important set of figures OFM estimates are the potential administrative costs of just having the thing around, regardless of paying claims. Those numbers are: It is assumed that this analysis would apply to all new rules, regulations, and ordinances, although the level of analysis would vary depending upon the action. Given current rule making schedules, state agencies estimate additional costs to the rule making process of $24 million over six years. Based upon permit activity it is estimated to cost cities between $80 million and $103 million and counties $28 million and $36 million over six years. So, either services will be cut to administer this law or taxes will be raised. Why are these numbers more important: two reasons.1) These are costs regardless of pay or waive. 2) Proponents of 933 want to develop, not be paid, and no one can afford to pay (so stop harping on the big speculative number). No claims will be paid, so they will be waived, and development will happen. The administrative costs of either paying or waiving are fixed. The social costs of allowing development are unknown, which is the problem when articulating the problems. Regards,
Arie v.
The bulk of the $7.3 – $9 billion estimates are based on paying landowners instead of having them to adhere to updated land use and environmental regulations. Development and zoning rights would be rarely at stake, but chaotically 933 can mean something different for almost every parcel in the state making any claim hard to refute.Even some of the most progressive rules such as the 65% native vegetaion rule in rural King County aren’t costing landowners billions. But under 933 could I sue and claim 65% of my parcel has been taken? Possibly, if so then these numbers could be low. Will or can local governments choose waive instead of paying as Dan points out? —All are open questions with different types and levels of costs associated.In the end it’s cticical that voters understand that 933 does not come for free. The financial impact statement will be on the voting pamphlet. The Office of Financial Management came up with a fair statement on a difficult projection. It’s a no-win for the folks who had to come up with the statement, but I say bravo!
David Sucher
You folks could have been a bit more sensitive to the legitimate grievances of property owners and we wouldn’t have this problem.My own take is that I-933 is 1. very poorly drafted legislation 2. it will not pass3 and if it does pass, its most egregious aspects will be ignored, whitled-away and modified (both de jure and de facto) out of existence because basically PEOPLE LIKE ZONING since in protects their property values.So don’t worry so much. Or if you do want to worry, try to figure out a way to make our land-use regulations a little less harsh and oppressive.
Dan
David has a good point about sensitivity. In one of the papers written to analyze the aftermath of M37 (that I can’t find the link for right now), the last paragraph of the conclusion says this very same thing – the regs weren’t flexible but society was, thus M37 happened.
Arie v.
Hallelujah on the lack of sensitivity comment. I’m not one of whom you see as “you folks” btw. :)David, See my post. http://www.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2006/07/11/rural-rage-over-reason