Property rights fights

Oregon vote emboldens local critics of land-use rules

By Deirdre Gregg

Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle)

Updated: 7:00 p.m. ET Jan. 16, 2005

Emboldened by the success of property-rights initiative Measure 37 in Oregon, critics of Washington's current land-use policies are considering launching an initiative of their own.

Several prominent property-rights and land-use groups expect to meet Jan. 14 at the Olympia offices of the Building Industry Association of Washington to discuss the possibility.

Organizer Gary Tripp of Bainbridge Citizens United is bringing together some of the state's initiative veterans -- including the BIAW and Tim Eyman -- with Measure 37's sponsor, Oregonians in Action. OIA executive director David Hunnicutt will speak at the meeting.

Other groups sending representatives include the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Washington Farm Bureau, the Washington State Grange and the Washington Policy Center.

Tripp said he's lining up a spokesperson, a campaign manager and funding for the group, tentatively called Balanced Rights.

Oregon's Measure 37, which took effect Dec. 2, requires state and local governments to compensate property owners when regulations reduce the value of their property, or forgo enforcing the regulations.

Also, Oregon's new law is retroactive and applies to inherited land. Governments must either pay compensation or waive restrictions imposed after the owners, their parents or grandparents first acquired the property.

Measure 37 applies broadly to state and local land-use regulations. About 67 claims have been filed in Oregon so far, with applicants wanting to subdivide lots, build additional houses and change zoning from farm use to commercial-industrial.

Advocates say the Oregon initiative gave property owners hope after 30 years of excessive restrictions on land-use planning. But critics say the measure effectively guts enforcement of land-use restrictions because cash-strapped local governments can't afford to compensate property owners.

The Oregon ballot measure passed by more than 60 percent. Tripp and others say the Oregon vote suggests a similar measure could also pass in Washington.

Land-use regulation, always a hot topic, has seemed particularly contentious in Washington in recent months.

Many rural King County residents are outraged at the county's new critical areas ordinances, which place restrictions on the development of rural land. Earlier this month, a judge blocked their attempt to overturn the rules with a referendum. Property rights advocates will appeal to the state Supreme Court.

On the other side of Puget Sound, Kitsap County is drafting its own critical areas ordinances, stirring the ire of some property rights groups there.

Former Gov. Gary Locke recently threatened to sanction Snohomish County over land-use changes by withholding the county's $9 million share of the motor vehicle fuel tax. Locke dropped the penalty when the Snohomish County Council clarified, reluctantly, that the disputed land was restricted to farming.

And of course, there's the disputed governor's race. Supporters of Dino Rossi, whom many voters see as a champion of property rights, want to vote again for governor. They question the legitimacy of Christine Gregoire's victory.

Eyman said he's gotten e-mails from supporters asking him about launching a property-rights campaign. "It's an issue that's been brought to a head; ... people are looking for an outlet for their frustration," he said.

In Olympia, some of the groups attending the Jan. 14 meeting are coming fresh from such fights.

Rodney McFarland, president of the Citizens Alliance for Private Property Rights, plans to attend. McFarland's group collected more than 18,000 signatures to put referenda on King County's critical areas ordinances on the ballot.

The Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners is also sending four representatives because the group is concerned about the CAO process in Kitsap County, said KAPO president Tim Matthes.

Tripp says his group has lobbied Bainbridge Island and testified at legislative hearings in Olympia, but a possible property rights initiative is his biggest political challenge.

And it's a personal issue for him. "We've been fighting an uphill battle against what I view as illegal regulatory taking -- taxing people by taking their property to create public resources," he said. "I feel it's a great injustice and it's just not what government was intended to do."

Leadership may be an issue for the nascent property-rights campaign. Tripp says he will help organize the group, and others, including Eyman and the Pacific Legal Foundation, say they will advise the campaign without taking leadership roles.

Tripp is critical of how the state Growth Management Act is being enforced. "The concept was good, but it's been perverted for this social-engineering agenda," he said.

Of course, it's not just property rights groups that are watching developments in Oregon. Environmental organizations say they also learned from Measure 37.

"What happened in Oregon is they got stuck with a misleading ballot title. That's not going to happen here," said John Healy, communications director with land-use environmental group 1000 Friends of Washington. "The conventional wisdom says that a good ballot title is worth a couple of million dollars in campaign contributions."

Healy says he expects that once the effects of Measure 37 become clear, Oregon voters will want it modified. In the meantime, Healy expects a fight in Washington, with property rights groups on one side and the environmental community, labor, cities and counties on the other.

"This would be a big fight," Healy said, "and I suspect there would be national players involved."