“Our God given unalienable rights are given to us all as individuals. They tell us what me may do for ourselves, and they are the embodiment of liberty.
The so-called rights that government gives to some of us are parcelled out to select groups as classes. They tell us what one class of people may require another to do for them, and they are the very essence of slavery.”— Perri Nelson, February 9, 2010
A bheil Gàidhlig agaibh?
A victory for property rights in King County Washington
Published Mon, Jul 7 2008 11:55 AM
I'm still waiting for details, but there are reports that a Washington state appeals court has overturned the abominable King County Critical Areas Ordinance. For those that don't know, that was a law, passed by an overwhelmingly urban county council that essentially took away the rights of rural property owners in unincorporated King County to use two-thirds of their property. It was plainly a violation of the United States Constitution as well as the Constitution of the State of Washington. I'll post updates as I learn more.
[Update #1] The Seattle PI is the first news outlet that I've seen on the web to say anything about this.
In its ruling the appelate court said "because the clearing limitations of the ordinance fall within the score of an indirect 'tax, fee, or charge' on development the county has failed in its burden to show that the limitations fall within any of the statutory exceptions."
I'm still waiting for a link to the actual ruling to become available.
[Update #2] The opinion is now available online. The Court didn't reach the constitutional issues, which is a shame. Instead the court overturned the ordinance as a violation of state law (RCW 82.02.020). I would have loved to see King County and other heavily "blue" counties in Washington forced to start abiding by the state Constitution. Still, it's good to see the county forced to abide by the law at the very least.
[Update #3] The actual amount of property use that the Critical Areas Ordinance took away from property owners varied between 35% and 50%. That's significantly less than two-thirds of a person's property (the figure I mentioned above), but it's still egregious. The Court based its decision on the notion that the prohibition against clearing constitutes an indirect "tax, fee, or charge" under RCW 82.02.020. Even though no actual monetary tax, fee, or charge is included in the law, the clearing prohibition amounts to an "in kind" charge. A nice technicality that prevents the court from having to get into the constitutional issue I guess.
This ruling comes too late for my friends in unincorporated King County who objected to the law before it was passed. They've passed on and their property has been sold. Nevertheless, I'm happy to see this unconstitutional ordinance overturned, whether on a violation of state law or the state constitution.
TAKE THAT RON SIMS!
[Update #4] Ron Sims isn't taking it lying down. An article in the Seattle Times from last night ends with this…
In a statement, Sims expressed disappointment at the ruling.
"We are still researching what today's decision means for King County residents and government," Sims said in the statement. "We will work with our attorneys to carefully review the decision and determine our next steps. One possible unintended consequence to this decision is that some property owners may face higher restrictions than those currently in place."
Leave it to Ron Sims to take a defeat and turn it into a threat of even more takings. This man has got to be removed from government. He's very clearly against the rights of property owners.
Comments (1) | Trackbacks (0)
Blogs Against Nancy Pelosi
