Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water…
There’s rumors on the Internets, as they say, that property rights supporters are going to revive Washington’s Initiative 933 and California’s Proposition 90. And it hasn’t even been a week since the election!
I mention this for two reasons. First, I’ve been dying for chance to write the phrase Whac-A-Mole—and this is really the perfect opportunity. Second, it underscores the extent to which we need to continue improving our understanding of property, fairness, individual rights, and community.
We’ll also need to take a hard look at our current policies. Are they unfair? Are they unclear? And, if so, what can we do about fixing them?
That’s the subject of a thoughtful piece in today’s Seattle Times. The article centers on a rural property owner, who’s also one of Sightline’s “property rights” guest bloggers, Arie van der Hoeven. I think his point is worth taking seriously:
“Initiative 933 isn’t the solution,” van der Hoeven says, “but there is a problem.”
…many foes, like van der Hoeven, also acknowledged there was some truth to what I-933’s backers were saying: Land-use rules aren’t always fair.
kubamils
Property rightists are grasping for some kind of leverage going back to the Legislature. But urban lawmakers are unlikely to be moved—they have bigger headaches.Rural denizens also need to convince their customary cronies—homebuilders, real estate salespeople and timber interests—that they have something better to offer than the predictability and 20-year housing supply that’s assured and road-tested now in the Growth Management Act (GMA).The GMA is not nearly as “long-in-the-tooth” as Oregon’s statewide planning, but a “Pretty Big Look” that travels statewide to specifically address critical areas and related rural issues before reporting back to Olympia seems like a timely move.We need equitable ways to deal with specific hardships. There has to be an impartial and appealable way to assign a monetary value to the affect that a given rule has on a given piece of land. With that, the state can then offer remuneration through tax breaks, college tuition credits at state universities, annuities, development rights elsewhere, free dental work, whatever.
spitintheocean
I agree with kubamils , the urban priorities are not sympathetic to rural takings . I consider it a personal tragedy , the way people who own land have been characterized as greedy and selfish , somehow too stupid to do the right thing . I liken the process to an involutary land trust , with the taxes , i happen to live in a city and while most of the examples are rural , a similar landgrab is effecting city councils. The incentive to “save other people’s land ” is that you a city can rezone Residentially zoned property (if it’s over 1 acre ) , into a natural area next to your 50×100 buildable R-2 lot and suddenly you have value added the 50×100 lot and all adjacent 50×100 lots to the new regulatory taking land trust . Maybe whack a mole is a funny analogy , but what you are really whacking down is fairness and equity when you demean our attempts to raise the bar for dubious municipal land grabs .
Arie v.
Good comments. I agree there are no easy answers. We need policies that reduce the cost and complexity of relations and at the same time we need to reduce the rate of change. Running with the banner of iterative changes based on “Best Available Science” runs counter to that. The science is fuzzy to begin with then broadly interpreted and does not take the cost of regulations (both in adminisration and property values) into account. Today regulations that costs $1 and brings $10 of community value are treated the same as those that costs $10 and brings $1. Then of course the costs are not distributed equally. BTW, I’m a “rural denizen” but you guys are my cronies. 🙂
kubamils
At the moment I’m an urban dweller who is paying more than four times as much in taxes and higher living costs than I did when I was a ruralite. Not to mention the toll on my sanity: the Rat Race tax. So what’s “unfair” is pretty relative.Regulations that squeeze $10 out of landowners to get $1 in community value are real and the inequity has got to end.But show me some sweat equity: The people I saw who inherited or married into several acres were usually the first to fall to the floor, wail and beat their fists because they couldn’t turn their pasture into rural homesites.
Arie v.
We’ve gone in opposite directions – I’m an ex Wallingford and Cap Hill resident. I’ll take these in order:1. Conversly I’m paying more tax that I did when I owned a home in an urban area. I’ll assume you didn’t live in rural east KC.2. Halleluja – but I’ll admit it is difficult to measure a given regulation’s cost effectiveness. Not that KC doesn’t have the talent if not the will. 3. I like many here have *no* family money or land. I earned what I own and I’m currently putting my wife through college. My neighbors are similar – though I have heard of the type you mention.
Dan
I’m working up a post-mortem op-ed for our local paper on this issue as we speak. Read. Basically, the majority has spoken and said ‘no new taxes to protect our common goods’. My personal opinion of what will happen with private property rights/”regulatory takings” during this session of the lege: not much. The initiative got whacked hard and therefore the impetus for action is not there. My suggestion: the PPR movement needs to come closer to the center or nothing will happen. I think landowners have a better chance of making this change than the PPR interest groups, BTW. Arie:That was a nice piece by Eric. One day big, dumb buffers will go by the wayside; but until DOE gets some $$ to up their staffing to address this issue, what you are going to get is just what you did: wasting time to show that your property doesn’t have a big, dumb wetland that needs a big, dumb buffer. It has potholes with little ecological function. We’ve got lots of little potholes here in Buckley, with hydric soil everywhere (the term is mosaic); I was in Tacoma today to try and get a better handle on this issue for my land use inventory so I have a better idea where my folks can expect to be unable to build. \Good luck with your house, sir.Dan S.’
Dan
I’m working up a post-mortem op-ed for our local paper on this issue as we speak. Read. Basically, the majority has spoken and said ‘no new taxes to protect our common goods’. My personal opinion of what will happen with private property rights/”regulatory takings” during this session of the lege: not much. The initiative got whacked hard and therefore the impetus for action is not there. My suggestion: the PPR movement needs to come closer to the center or nothing will happen. I think landowners have a better chance of making this change than the PPR interest groups, BTW. Arie:That was a nice piece by Eric. One day big, dumb buffers will go by the wayside; but until DOE gets some $$ to up their staffing to address this issue, what you are going to get is just what you did: wasting time to show that your property doesn’t have a big, dumb wetland that needs a big, dumb buffer. It has potholes with little ecological function. We’ve got lots of little potholes here in Buckley, with hydric soil everywhere (the term is mosaic); I was in Tacoma today to try and get a better handle on this issue for my land use inventory so I have a better idea where my folks can expect to be unable to build. \Good luck with your house, sir.Dan S.’
Dan
oops. Dangers of using Mozilla. Sorry.DS
cardinalbird
I think that it is unfair what is happening to the land, rural King county or not, we have to start somewhere. I think that the biggest flaw is that a comprehensive plan has not been developed and implemented, so far the waters are murky and the people taking the plunge are people with 5 acres of wetland that they can’t build on without $5,000+ in fees (I don’t believe that this is beyond means for someone who can afford 5 rural acres). Maybe we could consider that wetland shouldn’t be for sale. Maybe it is not fair for the indigenous of this land to have to sit and watch you develop their stolen land. Who says that it is “yours” anyhow. Maybe we should think about this situation in terms of sustainability and reailize that how we live is not and never will be sustainable. We need to stop building roads, take some existing ones over and build public transport or better yet walk or bike. Keep agriculture rural and have others who want to live rurally, to do it restrictively and sustainably.
Arie v.
The $5000+ figure came from King County for the minimum fee cost of a reasonable use exemption, but the real cost to both our pocket book, our dreams and the environment would have been the location on a steep slope with access road cutting the hillside. This would have created a 40-50 graded swath through the woods.The cost to us would have been nearer to $100,000 in fees, engineering costs, and loss of value for the homesite. I can back that up and did in front of a GMUAC council meeting.I think you’re confusing a sustainable rural lifestyle with something quite different. Please e-mail me if you want to see all the wetland ratings, home site proposals and engineering drawings and examine this for yourself. We’re keeping 4 of our 5.5 acres in forestry and may even end up with more than that. BTW, this lot is no more encumbered by critical areaswetlands than any other in the area, much less so than some nearby. We are restrictive and sustainable – and it is still very difficult.
spitintheocean
So what is to be done ? Part of the problem is the lack of stability that is occurring and how it effects long term personal and regional planning . It is hard to believe that at no time during the 16 year history of the GMU , with all of it’s thoughtful visions and science , that compensation for changing the long term uses of private land were not discussed . I hear a lot of handwringing comments , but largely they can be divided into two camps ; 1/ Somehow this is turming into some kind of class war and the argument for a lot of folks is ” You own too much , you must be rich , i want your stuff , for free . 2/ Well intentioned folks that cannot grasp that a lot of the Pacific Northwest sweat equity and capitol are tied up in land and property , and the continued wholesale “taking” of this capitol is bound to disrupt the economic future of lots of Washingtonians . This is a 3rd world concept for disaster . Upon reflection , I like the comment about compensating landowners with free dental work for the loss of land values . Afterall if it is the response of the enviromental community to tell landholders ” to go eat cake” , then I suspect that a lot of people will be needing a root canal .
Arie v.
Eric has pointed out that some have benefited from regulations through increases in property values. Unfortunately, there are winners and losers and any system of compensation is bound to be complex if “fairness” is a goal. There is one system for compensation called the Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS) that came with the CAO and we were one of the first rural landowners to create a plan. For us the tax savings are significant as is the amount of habitat we’re willing to set aside.PBRS is a good idea, but many/most folks in rural areas area afraid to even let King County on their property let alone enter some bureaucratic process. They have some justification for their fears, the first time I tried to do the “right thing” with King Coutny it cost us thousands of dollars and DDES threatens to evict me on a yearly basis for crimes of the former homeowner’s ex-wife’s brother-in-law – long story. The moral of the story could have been to “never work with King County” which is a common sentiment that should be overcome.We have to start by committing to fairness, establishing trust and making some good will gestures to the rural community. (i.e. do we really need the 65% rule? – is it fair?) Any solution that balances fairness and GMA goals is going to be a challenge.
Dan
One of the problems with ecological economics and monetization of ecosystem services is that externalities will be internalized, and therefore costs and prices will rise.Hence capitalism’s disparagement of ecological accounting and delay over implementing any sort of policy such as a PBRS, which would require a full-cost accounting of ecosystem services on, say, Arie’s land if he wishes to cut some of his woodlot adjacent to a stream. Eric has pointed out that some have benefited from regulations through increases in property values. Unfortunately, there are winners and losers and any system of compensation is bound to be complex if “fairness” is a goal. I assert there are vastly more winners than losers in our regulatory system. We certainly need to figure out a way to compensate the losers, but unfortunately the latest campaign to assert harm was based on deception and half-truths and may well have delayed this action.