Enter stage right: a good bill in the Washington legislature on eminent domain. It proposes a small but easy fix:
The bill would require public agencies to send a certified letter notifying property owners of any meeting to take action on acquiring their land. It says notice also has to be published in the newspaper.
There appears to be no opposition. And there shouldn’t be—this law should have been on the books years ago.
The bill doesn’t address all the relevant concerns—or even the biggest concerns—but it’s a step in the right direction. More government transparency, more community-level democracy, and better protection for property owners: I hope we can all agree on those things.
David Sucher
I applaud your continuing interest in this issue. I had thought that your concern (when I-933 was in play )for genuine grievances was crocodile tears. I was wrong; and I am happy to say so.
Dan
I applaud this step.It does not deal with regulatory takings, however, and from what I remember, what was presented for the lege to debate this session was eyewash. This is, of course, due to the resounding defeat I-933 took at the polls. And I doubt the crew that Howie and his minions assembled in WA for “property rights reform” can mount a serious campaign any time soon (as obviously anyone in power thinks too). But this does not take away the legitimate claims of the small minority affected by the GMA. I hope that the next lege session will take actual steps to compensate the few outside the UGA harmed by GMA. And I also hope the lege will both demarcate and do something about the parcels that have made plans to develop. WA _has_ to stop parcelization outside of UGBs if ecosystem services are to be protectid and land banking for future generations is going to happen.Sacrifice.D
Arie v.
This is a good start. Property rights and fairness issues aren’t likely to be solved with a single bill or policy change, it’s in more need of something like the 49 fixes recommended by Metro Transit and Ron Sims. Here’s an attempted start:1. Transparent Eminent Domain Proceedings.2. Time goals/limits for agency land studies so properties don’t sit in limbo for months.3. Social service support and advocacy for elderly or low/fixed income rural landowners4. Relief for fees directly related to increased environmental protections. 5. Reporting and tracking the regulatory cost of home development per county.6. Guarantees that new regulations won’t make buildable lots effectively unbuildable.7. Buffer or tax relief to mitigate buffer impacts on farm land.8,9,10… Etc. I’m probably boring folks, but this is the type of issue by issue debate that has to happen or we’ll continue to see sweeping measures. There is a bill introduced, 5248, that proposes to completely exempt farms from CAO buffers: http://www.apps.leg.wa. gov/billinfo. Here we go again… and it’s hard to argue against it when no attempt at sharing the burden has yet been made.
JB
this is a bit off point but still addresses land use in rural WA where I live. Since the CAO I have whitnessed wholesale strip logging in the area. With a dnr permit one can log to 30′ of a creek. The folks responsible for this have indicated to me, better do it now , more land use regs and policing are probably coming down the pike. Would this have happened without the cao? I don’t know, but the attitude out here is foul and there is more logging happening now than in any of the 35 years I have been here.It’s sad to whitness 100 year old trees completely being stripped off steep terrained properties next to creeks.It appears to be take it while you can, because in 6 years we can still build on the property (morritorium complied with). some of these properties can generate a fair chunk of dollars for the timber. So who does the most damage to the envorrnment, the folks living here or those completely stripping the land. If this is really a consequence of over regulations, bet the legis didn’t think of this one?
Arie v.
Increased logging here was caused a combination of factors including the CAO and softwood price spikes during the national building boom and post Katrina. If you have the means to wait 6 years and are willing to be a jerk, you could purchase some good sized lots next to me for market value, then taken out a few thousand 110 year old Doug Firs. Your purchase price is defrayed and you have a nice investment going. It’s more complex than that of course, but if you believe that regulations will continue to increase then the timber becomes a liability rather than a future investment. Might as well hack away…
JB
I don’t see regulations backing off much as they haven’t in the past to my knowledge anyway?I am not against farming your land,am against over regulation though, but do appreciate those that farm esthetically, typically the way logging is done in Eastern Washington, I have done some logging in the area here myself and always leave buffers, all the beauty trees etc. The property benefits, habitat is not destroyed, some $ came my way and the neighbors were happy. There are some logging cos opperating in my area that are creating wastelands of the properties they log, leaving virtually nothing on the properties they log. The future for those properties is blackberries and Alders.It’s a complicated issue.