October 23, 2005

Backers of property rights effort push ahead

BY BRAD SHANNON

THE OLYMPIAN

The Washington State Farm Bureau is preparing to file an initiative that would protect the rights of property owners in response to complaints that Washington state and local governments are going too far with their land regulations.

The bureau would file in January, hoping to land it on the November 2006 statewide ballot, spokesman Dean Boyer said.

"The goal would be to require the government to either compensate for the devalued property or the loss of reasonable use -- or not apply the regulation," Boyer said.

A court decision earlier this month, which struck down Oregon's new Measure 37 won't slow their efforts to seek compensation for land owners harmed by government rules.

"We are still in the drafting phase for our property rights initiative," Boyer said. "But we would not expect to face a similar challenge because we have never intended to pattern ours on Measure 37."

The Building Industry Association of Washington, which had been rumored to have an interest in sponsoring a Measure 37-style initiative, hasn't decided yet whether it will get involved, BIAW spokeswoman Erin Shannon said.

Environmentalists already are gearing up to fight any similar proposal in this state, contending the Measure 37 ruling bodes well for defending land-use laws here, according to Aisling Kerins, campaign coordinator for the Community Protection Coalition in Washington.

Land-use issues are hot in the Northwest and in Thurston County. Close to 1,000 people turned out last month for one Thurston County planning commission hearing that touched on development in environmentally sensitive areas.

Measure 37 required state and local governments to pay property owners if land uses or values are restricted or reduced by land-use laws. A circuit court judge in Marion County struck down the citizen initiative as unconstitutional, reversing what had been a resounding victory at the polls last November for some landowners.

Judge Mary James found that it imposed limits on government's exercise of police powers and also treated property owners differently based on whether they acquired property before or after land-use rules took effect.

Kerins described a coalition of defenders that includes Futurewise, the Washington Environmental Council, Washington Conservation Voters and labor groups.

Recent efforts by Thurston County government to widen buffers along waterways are an example of what the Farm Bureau and environmental groups are likely to fight over.

Boyer, of the Farm Bureau, said the revisions to so-called critical areas ordinances by Thurston and the state's other 38 counties are required under Washington's Growth Management Act.

Thurston County farmer Darrell MacDonald, who has criticized the proposal before the Thurston County Planning Commission, said he could lose a quarter of his hayfields near Woodard Bay.

MacDonald said he supports anything the Farm Bureau does to bolster land rights, and he hopes the Oregon ruling leads to a well-drafted Washington measure.

On the other side is Vince Cottone, who is carefully watching a 600-unit housing proposal south of Tumwater. Cottone said he was buoyed by news of the Oregon court ruling.

"I'm not surprised, to be honest," Cottone said. "I think this whole thing was fraught with problems. Even if it had stood, it wouldn't have solved anyone's problems. ... I'm for responsible development."

The Oregon attorney general is expected to appeal the Measure 37 decision, which is expected to eventually land in that state's supreme court. More than 2,500 claims for compensation were pending under the measure but would be invalid, unless a higher court restores the law.

Brad Shannon is political editor for The Olympian. He can be reached at 360-753-1688 or beshanno@theolympian.com.