Washington State I-933

I-933, are you for or against?  Or do you know what it is?

It's a state initiative, way up here in the forgotten corner of the country.  But it has gotten some nation-wide attention, like Oregon's Measure 37.   It's a land use initiative, another "takings clause" effort, and to call it controversial is not an exaggeration.

I-933 would require compensation to private land owners when government regulation lowers the value of the property.  For example, if regulations requiring a wetlands buffer, or wildlife habitat buffer, meant that a landowner could no loger build a house, or no longer run his farming business, the government juristiction enforcing the regulation would need to compensate the landowner for the lost value.  In other words, taxpayers would have to pay land owners when property use is regulated for the public good.  You want a wetlands buffer?  Pay for it.

On the one hand, this is simple fairness and perfectly in line with both the US and Washington State Constitutions, both stating that private property can't be "taken" without compensating the owner.  In fact, the WA State constitution says "taken or damaged", putting an even bigger burden on the government.

On the other hand, paying every land owner for the restrictions governments want to put on the land - sometimes even perfectly valid and necessary restrictions - could get expensive in a hurry.   Opponents of I-933 claim it will costs local governments billions.  Oponents think it will devastate critical environmental protections by making them too expensive to enforce.

WA is a liberal state.   A pro-conservation state.   WA has a Democrat Governor, two Democrat Senators, a Democrat-controlled state legislature, and polls currently show I-933 leading by 16 points. 

Leading by 16 points. 

How can this be?

Call it blowback.  Land use regulation in Washington has been increasingly heavy-handed (could there be a connection to the Democrat-controlled government?), especially in rural areas, always justified by environmental concerns.   Recently, King County (where Seattle is) enacted the CAO - Critical Areas Ordinance.  CAO severely limited rural landowners, limiting them to building on 10% of their property, and requiring 65% to be left completely untouched - natural state with no clearing of vegitation, landscaping, or use for grazing, crops, etc.  CAO essentially "took" 65% of the land from rural land owners.   Bought 5 acres for a horse farm?  Sorry. 

The justification given for CAO was that salmon were endangered in Puget Sound, with lowered spawning runs in the rivers and streams, and rural land use had to be restricted in order to protect the salmon habitat.

Salmon that spawn in rural King County get there by swimming from Puget Sound up the Ballard Locks fish ladder, through the lakes and canals that link the Sound to Lake Washington.  From Lake Washington the fish finally swim into the various rivers and streams, where they spawn amid the farms, ranches and towns of rural King County. 

The locks, the ship canal, and Lake Union are all surrounded by the dense urban landscape of Seattle.  Large numbers of fish are counted each year at the fish ladder, at the begining of their journey through the urban waters.  Relatively few are counted in the rivers at the end of that journey.  They're being lost in the urban waters, not the rural waters. 

But there are more voters in urban Seattle than rural King County.  So placing restrictions on the city might just get politicians unelected.  So they put them on the relatively few rural landowners, essentially transferring the responsibilty of providing for the salmon from the urbanites who are killing them to the ruralite who are not. 

It's not only unfair, but it also doesn't work very well as an environmental policy.  But the people who do it are called environmentalists and the people who oppose it are called evil, greedy shills. 

And I-933 may pass because people are cluing into things like this.