Property Rights and Political Fights
Washington Property Rights Initiative Draws Shadowy Supporter and Big Money Opposition
The pro and con groups wrestling over Initiative 933 — a Measure 37 look-alike — are heavily funded and evenly matched. But who are these guys?By Dan Richardson, 6-27-06
The push for an Oregon-style waive-or-pay property rights law in Washington state has a inspired an opposition movement, one that is well-funded and serious and going head-to-head with the property rights folks.
I-933 is a Washington state initiative backed by farm bureaus and opposed by environmental groups and unions. Last week, the opposition group Citizens for Community Protection purchased out full-page ads in the state’s major newspapers saying that 933 raises too many unanswered questions for voters to support.
Some questions were rather clearly false hypotheticals (“What about 933’s endless lawsuits?”) but others struck the mark dead-center (“Who benefits from all the loopholes?”).
Other interesting questions for voters considering whether to support a Measure 37-style law in Washington might include, who is for and against this thing? And, who is spending the money to push it, and to push back?
The struggle over 933 is one waged by two campaigns that, financially, are remarkably well-matched. According to public finance documents filed with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission, the pro-933 Property Fairness Coalition (PFC) had raised $378,000 by the end of May. The opposition group called Citizens for Community Protection (CCP) raised $387,000.
The money split, in other words, is almost exactly 50/50.
It’s not just the absolute dollars that may be of interest, but who’s giving the money for and against the property rights revolution. Both sides get the $25 checks from Joe and Jane Sixpack of Elk Snout, Wash., and quite a few of those, but the big money is from concentrated sources.
The opposition CCP received money from a number of green advocacy groups ($38,500 from the Nature Conservancy; $75,000 from Futurewise),a union or two and from wealthy Seattlelites (including $50,000 from journalist-turned-computer moghul-turned-conservationist Paul Brainerd).
No surprises there: The opposition is composed of stardard-issue left-of-center interests, from the enviro groups to Washington state’s version of celebrity donors.
The more rightward PFC, meanwhile, took money from a number of county farm bureaus, but more than half — $200,000 — comes from a deep-pocketed group called Americans for Limited Government, or ALG, according to public records.
ALG, based in Illinois, has ties through its board members to other conservative groups like the Cato Institute. The organization is spending millions of dollars in a nationwide ideological campaign of grassroots action. Its money funds libertarian-oriented political initiatives around the country, primarily in the form of spending caps and Measure 37-like property rights laws. ALG not only puts the spine in the Washington state’s I-933 effort, but the organization has spent more than $300,000 for the “Homeowners Protection Effort” initiative this year in Arizona, and is bankrolling property rights laws in half a dozen other states.
Says the ALG web site, “We specialize in — and focus our resources on — political action. In states across the nation, we work with local groups, using the direct initiative process to make serious changes in public policy and put the people back in charge of state politics. “
The coinciding of a wave of property rights initiatives around the West, and a national spending campaign in support of them, is interesting. At least one blogger speculates that ALG may be collecting funds from local big money interests or donors, then sending the dollars back to fund the various initiative campaigns anonymously. Laundering it, in other words. There’s no actual evidence of that in Washington state, that I see.
There is this odd fact, though: The 933 campaign war chest includes no large donations from home builders, realtors or real estate agencies, the very people who should be at the forefront.
Besides ALG, most of the campaign’s money comes from various county farm bureaus. Loggers gave a couple thousand dollars to the 933 campaign, too — not much, really — as did individual ranchers and farmers, small companies and individuals. One realty company’s employees gave $1,000. Big deal.
But there should be serious heaps of money from developers and real estate companies, big fat checks from home builders and the like. And there aren’t. Hardly a penny.
Why not?
That, as much as any scare-mongering point raised by the Citizens for Community Protection, is a worthwhile and unanswered question.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
I'd like to start communicating with potential allies -- both individuals and organizations--to prepare for the possibility. Email
On June 23 the Washington Farm Bureau issued this news release http://www.wsfb.com/PublicRelations/June.htm#June 23, 2006
>>Farm Bureau to city officials: Consider costs, respect constitutional rights
SPOKANE – A Washington Farm Bureau official warned a gathering of city officials today that "the days of ignoring the cost of your actions are about to come to an end."
Speaking about the Property Fairness Initiative, Washington Farm Bureau’s Dan Wood told mayors and city council members at a meeting of the Association of Washington Cities in Spokane that Initiative 933 will require them to "tell the voters why new regulations are needed, consider the cost of your actions in advance, and consider working with property owners through voluntary alternatives."
"These are basic, commonsense actions that people expect from their public officials," said Wood, director of government relations for the state’s largest agricultural organization.
"You need to understand that you harm the economy, harm property values and violate civil rights in private property when you over-regulate," said Wood. "The people are no longer willing to let that continue."
Initiative 933 will require state and local agencies to state the reason new property regulations are necessary, identify how much the regulations would damage use and value of private property, and consider cooperative, voluntary alternatives.
Opponents, including the Association of Washington Cities, claim these requirements would be too costly to implement.
Not so, said Wood. "These are things you should be doing already. Are you prepared to look your voters in the eye and say ‘I don’t want to know the cost of my decisions; I don’t want to tell you why we’re passing new laws; I don’t want to consider working cooperatively through voluntary programs’?"
The initiative would also require state and local agencies to compensate property owners when regulations damage use or value of private property.
Wood cited several examples of regulations that cause damage to use or value of private property. Among them are:
Jefferson County is considering a proposal for a 450 foot buffer.
Thurston County proposes to "downzone" rural property owners, taking away property value that could affect retirement investments. In addition, county planners proposed a buffer of up to 250 feet, requiring development permits for farming or moving soil, and requiring property owners to post bonds for squirrel habitat fencing.
Lewis County has been ordered by a state board to designate as "Agricultural Lands of Long Term Commercial Significance" lands that have never been farmed. This threatens the value of farmland, making it more difficult to maintain viability of working family farms.
King County requires rural property owners to leave 65 percent of their parcels in "native vegetation."
Stevens County has been ordered by a state board to regulate property owners on behalf of two bird species that are neither threatened nor endangered.
Ferry County has been ordered by a state board to regulate to protect habitat for caribou, which have never been sighted in Ferry County. In a dissenting opinion, after the state Supreme Court upheld the state board action, Justice Jim Johnson sarcastically pointed out that Bigfoot has been seen more times in Ferry County than Caribou.
In Clark County, officials are discussing buffers and habitat for banana slugs.
In Bellevue, property owners can be fined up to $12,000 for cutting down a tree without advance city permission.
In Kirkland, a man was fined $8,000 for cutting down trees on his own property after they were damaged in a windstorm.
The state Department of Community, Trade & Economic Development recommends riparian buffers ranging from 200 feet to entire floodplains. This would put a lot of farms out of business.
"If we want viable family farms in this state," Wood said, "we have to stop telling farmers they can’t farm large portions of their land. We have to stop damaging use and value of farmland."
But city dwellers are also protected by I-933, Wood added. "Everyone has equal protection of their property rights under the Property Fairness Initiative," he said.
Besides protecting the use and value of farmland and farming infrastructure, the initiative also protects property owners from regulations that interfere with their ability to manage trees and vegetation or their ability to protect their property from flood, fire and erosion.
"The city of Bellevue can fine you up to $12,000 if you cut down a tree on your property without advance permission from the city. Kirkland fined a man $8000 for cutting down wind-damaged trees on his property. Things have gotten way out of hand with these regulations," declared Wood.
So what is a responsible city official to do after the passage of the initiative?
"Do justice and serve humbly," said Wood.
"Good government counts the cost of its actions in advance. Good government also respects the civil rights of its citizens," said the Farm Bureau representative. "Remember that the U.S. Supreme Court said that our civil right in our property is no less of a right than our civil right to assembly, speech, or religion."
Wood also told city officials that they can do more good through cooperation than through the misuse of the power of government.
"Use the carrot instead of the stick," he told them. "We’ll see more environmental benefits from cooperative voluntary programs than we will from government violating property rights and damaging property values. If you ask property owners to work with government for solutions, you will get more ideas and more actions than if you just go in and try to control everything through costly regulations.
"Most property owners will do good deeds and make generous efforts if they are politely asked," said Wood. "It may be a new concept for some of you, but if you will just talk to your constituents, show a little kindness and patience, and humbly ask, then you’ll get more done in the long run."
"We need to change the culture in government," he added. "Cooperation can work for everyone. Coercion and control mostly create bitter fights with poor results."
Washington Farm Bureau is working with a growing coalition of organizations to place Initiative 933 on the fall election ballot. Supporters must submit nearly 225,000 valid voter signatures by July 7.
Wood says the coalition is nearing its goal of 300,000 signatures.
Americans for Limited Government, National Federation of Independent Business, Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights, and numerous other state and regional organizations have endorsed Initiative 933.<<
Whether or not this I-933 will "protect fundamental fairness under the Washington Constitution" or else simply swing the pendulum toward another extreme is an open question. Most Oregon voters supported our version of the law, Measure 37, thinking that it provided for fundamental fairness, and perhaps it was meant to; but really, the takings concept seems rather to reject clumsy governmental regulation for a Wild West libertarianism and pro-development agenda.
Neither, I think, is an extreme well-suited to a long-term, moderate and thoughtful balance of necessary planning and constitutional property rights.
As to what makes a more interesting question -- well, any time there's secrecy and big money involved in politics, it's a journalist's job to start speaking up. Freedom requires daylight.
Thanks again, Dan
"DEVELOPERS! Private corporation for sale which owns 50.8 acres of farmland, eligible for rezoning under measure 37. Near Arrowhead Golf Course, Clackamas County,OR. Fax 503-295-4023."
Americans for Limited Gov't gave money to pass Measure 37 as well...now you know who benefits.
I believe I-933 will make it to the ballot but its fate is uncertain given that Washington is really two states both geographically and ideologically. The battle will further polarize the two halves. Perhaps eastern Washington and Oregon will want their own state and suggest the two West's join to create their own progressive utopia.
In my case, I bought 40 acres in 1986 as a homesite. In 1989, I was rezoned from 1 acre lots to 5 acre lots, so that the County could increase the densities allowed to Weyerhauser for a mega-development about 1.5 miles to my north. None of these rights will be restored by I-933, as they would by Measure 37.
The fact that 50 acres of farmland is for sale for potential development does not indicate that there is any "big business" involved. The fact that the owners of this farm incorporated does not mean they have deep pockets.
The reason the incorporation is worth mentioning in an ad is that it allows the rights restored by Measure 37 to transfer to a new owner. If a piece of property is sold to a new individual in Oregon, all vested rights expire. By selling a corporation, the owner of the land does not change -- it is still owned by the same corporation -- and thus Measure 37 rights transfer to the new owners.
The reason that large developers are not spending money to support I-933 is because it is NOT in their financial interests. Under the current system, groups like Weyerhauser and etc. benefit. Since they are able to pay multi-million dollar fees for 10,000 unit projects -- in fact, the government takes away development rights of small landowners and give it to Weyerhauser, leaving the small landowner with greatly devalued land, and allowing the large developers to do their business without any competition from little guys.
If Weyerhauser pays King County $2 Million for 10,000 lots (often 6-10 units per acre), that means about $200 per lot. If I were able to divide my 40 acres (completely undevelopable under current rules, despite being surrounded by 1-acre and 5-acre developments) to the 5 acre zoning which applied in 1995, I would have to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000 to the county and for county required studies. My per-lot costs would be about $80,000.
You see why big developers are not behind this initiative? It only benefits small landowners -- who, in many cases have no other assets. Under the current system, my only asset has lost over 95% of its value.
That is why Property Rights is a grassroots effort, but large developers would be harmed if they are restored.
It is worth noting that Weyerhauser gives substantially to the "environmental" groups that are, in turn, funding the opposition.
There are hundreds of cases where small landowners have been devastated. If you had attended the hearings on the main "administrative takings" actions of local governments, you would have your heart broken by the harm done to ordinary people.
Retirees are one of the hardest hit groups -- they often lose their entire retirement savings when they are stripped of the value of their land.
There are others with serious illness, like cancer, disabled vets, etc. etc., who have been driven from their land with nothing to show for their lifetime of hard work.
The current situation causes tremendous injustice. The Fairness Initiative only helps small landowners -- and thus will only significantly affect a tiny portion of the total usable land.
Why is a review of the system worthwhile? Because of the very sorts of situations you cite -- "There are hundreds of cases where small landowners have been devastated. If you had attended the hearings on the main "administrative takings" actions of local governments, you would have your heart broken by the harm done to ordinary people."
Of course, ordinary people are often developers as much as any corporation is. Ordinary people in Oregon have filed hundreds of claims to subdivide parcels into 50 or 100 or more lots at a time.
I'm not ready to buy the argument that large developers are opposed to loosening land-use planning. I follow your Weyerhauser example -- and perhaps that is widely applicable. But yet the idea that (corporate) developers are opposed to loosening development rules does not compute. Those planning rules work against them, too, at least sometimes.
Or consider this: If the "big guys" are so afraid of the "little guys" that they support government planning rules, to squeeze the individual landowners out of the possibility of developing their land, then why aren't they giving money to the groups opposed to I-933? I mean, if there's a real chance of 933 passing -- and there is -- and that it passing will cost them their business edge, they should be in the fight. They would be. And they aren't.
See what I'm saying? Money talks -- and right now, there's silence on their part. And that doesn't make sense.
Dan
Is it because there is no restriction on "use or intensity" of a development that can go in next door? Or is it because developers don't have to worry about concurrency laws that would restrict "use or value" under the initiative.
The reason that the "big guys" aren't getting in on this thing is that when you wipe out zoning, which I-933 does, it creates instability in the real estate market.
Craig - I keep hearing things from the Farm Bureau about the Seattle Monorail...please point to where this would have changed the monorail? I-933 eludes to, but does not alter eminent domain in any way.
Here is the best analysis of what makes I-933 far more extreme than Measure 37 could ever imagine itself to be: http://www.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2006/05/25/measure-37-on-steroids
I-933 covers both "real and personal" property, meaning that any time a regulation could restrict the use of ANY property you could own (car/rv/intellectual property/my laptop) it triggers something for taxpayers to pay. It really opens the door to litigation...Government says that I can't use my car in the HOV lanes, because it hurts the use of my personal property I could file a claim. Can't motocross through a city park, that's a restriction on use. Sounds crazy, but there are lawyers who could easily make the argument because I-933 is so poorly written.
Of all the land-use initatives across the country this year, I believe I-933 is the only one to include personal property AND the only one to NOT directly addres Kelo through eminent domain reform.
In my case, in particular, I-933 would NOT restore ANY of my zoning. I would still be stuck at the current AR-5. (Keep in mind that buildable lots are worth about the same whether they are 1/2 acre or 10 acres... in fact, the smaller lots are often worth more.) 933 WOULD lift the traffic concurrency moratorium... of course, any reasonable reading of that law indicates that it should be lifted already. Unfortunately, the pols who run Kingco aren't really interested in reasonable or fair--- rather, they are bent on fighting land use however they can, by twisting around meanings or invoking absurd technicalities.
It's ironic that some urban folks are very upset now when they find out at community meetings that the old houses in their neighborhood will be torn down for apartments. They wanted to preserve the nature of MY neighborhood, not realizing that the tradeoff was that they have to take the extra people in THEIR neighborhood as a consequence.
Dan, thank you for your kind comments. Again regarding the financial participation of Weyerhauser... They fund the anti-933 folks by donating huge sums to the enviro-groups -- essentially bribes so that those groups will take the money and leave Weyerhauser alone. This is all a matter of public record.
Regarding I-933 being 37 "on steroids", that is pretty much absurd. 933 CLEARLY limits claims to laws made in the last 10 years, wheras 37 goes back indefinitely. The idea that going without a time limit is a problem is bizarre... In other words, it would be better to force everyone to make maximum use of their property immediately, instead of waiting until they had a need. So measure 37 would result in a rush of immediate filings, where 933's restored usage rights could be spread over a much longer time. Wouldn't that be considered "smarter growth"?
In fact, I have another suggestion to make. It should be possible to file a plat to divide property, but give the owner leeway in when the lots are created. In other words, most private landowners would really like to be able to build the roads for ONE lot and then sell that ONE lot... and keep doing so from time to time as they had a financial need.
Remember, we are not generally talking about folks that bought property to do a big division and sell it out and move to the Caribbean... Rather, they are people who bought a piece of property to live on, but which can be slowly liquidated over many years.
Regarding the claim that the administrative burden put on legislative bodies will be overwhelming... At the present time, they make no estimates of the administrative costs of their own programs, and ignore the total value they will devalue the property of a significant minority of the citizens. They are completely oblivious to the human costs of their actions.
When the CAO was passed, for example, County Councilmember Kathy Lambert asked Ron Sims people how much this proposed ordinance was going to cost. They hemmed and hawed for a few minutes, and finally concluded that they had not considered it... they were unable even to make an estimate.
To require legislative bodies to know how much new laws will cost is an obvious benefit. It is bizarre to me that it would even need to be explicitly required. For them to spend money and seize property, without any estimate of the cost, shows pure irresponsbility.
This doesn't just go back 10 years (more on that below), it freezes everything in time 10 years back from now until infinity. While some extremists might think that is good, we need the ability to plan for growth...this is not smart growth.
Also, unfortunately 933 doesn't just apply to the nice guy who only wants to sell off one lot every now and again...it applys to everyone and yes it will affect zoning, read the fine print.
There are many exemptions listed within the 933 on these rules...
---
Section 2 (2) (c) reads: "Damaging the use or value" does not include restrictions that apply equally to all property subject to the agency's jurisdiction.
---
By the literal meaning it is quite clear that zoning would be thrown out because by zoning's very nature, it does not apply equally to all properties. Some property allows industry, some ag, some residential, etc.
And the date of January 1, 1996 is mentioned only twice, once for reference to rolling back setbacks to that date (Section 2: (2)(c)(viii)) and the other place the date is mentioned is (Section 2: (2)(b)(i)).
---
Section 2: (2)(b)(i)- "Prohibiting or restricting any use or size, scope or intensity of any use legally existed or permitted as of January 1, 1996."
---
Meaning any existing use within a jurisdiction (because it all has to be equal, this is a one size fits all solution) must be allowed without restriction to "size, scope or intensity"...single-family home neighborhoods could have large multi-family buildings, height restrictions would be subject to a waiver, architectural guidelines would likely be thrown out, ag land can have rural subdivisions without restriction, etc.
Charles - you would be able to subdivide how you want because there can't be limits on "size or intensity" for what already sounds like there is a legal use.
Also, because the date is only mentioned twice, but there are many other stipulations in the initiative, it can be inferred that the date does not apply to the other stipulations. Rolling things back much further...insert lengthy lawsuit to sort that out here.
As I've discussed, this isn't just about buffers and setbacks, this includes "real and personal" property. This doesn't seem to alarm you guys?
This initiative doesn't freeze ANYTHING in time. All it does is say that if the people of the county want to take away land use from anyone, they all need to bear the burden equally (at least according to each person's relative tax burden). This is why it is the FAIRNESS initiative. It puts no limit on the ability of Government (ie: the people) to take away any property they choose. It simply requires them to pay for it rather than stealing it. It spreads the burden fairly.
In fact, most of these seizures have had nothing at all to do with the public good. They are based on UN Agenda 21 politics -- which admits in black & white that their primary agenda is the redistribution of wealth. ie... according to the UN, anybody who owns property are rich, and should have it taken away to "remedy the injustice of poverty." Their ecological claims are laughable -- remember that the rural people who are fighting it are people who actually work the land... we live here, and we care about and understand the ecology far more than politically motivated, college educated "ecologists".
Nothing changes with the new law, except that every time they pass land use laws, they need to calculate the total cost, and the people need to spread these burdens fairly. The fact is, their theories are not strong enough for the People to be willing to pay for the land. If the "smart growth" or ecological arguments are indeed compelling, surely the people of King County, etc., would be willing to pay for it. If I were convinced that any of those regulations really made ecological sense, I would certainly be willing to pay MY FAIR SHARE of the costs. Wouldn't you?? But without I-933, I pay, but you don't.
It also points out that if they pass regulations that apply to EVERYBODY, then nobody is entitled to compensation. In other words, if they want to enforce the 65-10 rules of the CAO, all they have to do is enforce it on ALL King County residents. (This rule states that 65% of all land must be abandoned and left alone, and only 10% can be used for such things as houses, patios, driveways, etc.)
Of course, urban residents would not like this because it means their parcels would then be too small to have a house or lawn. Since the urban residents would not be willing to pay the same price, their only way of forcing the rules on the rural residents would be to PAY for the land they are seizing.
Again, regarding the multi-family zoning... This only applies if multi-family zoning has been taken away after 1/1/96. The words you quote say no use can be prohibited (without compensation) that WAS allowed on 1/96... There is no way to construe that my property would suddenly have multi-family zoning. It never has in the past, although the fact is it is an ideal setting for condominums.
Also, when I suggested that it would be better if people were allowed to create a few lots at a time, I did not mean that people who want to do it all at one time are BAD... I just said that I think it would be a win-win situation if the rules were changed to allow it.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003108956_webpropertyrights06.html
Our area was rezoned from lower to higher density in 2006. Home buyers who are interested in a home on a large lot are not interested in our property because they don't want to be surrounded by condos or town homes that the new zoning will help become reality in the near future.
There is a stream on the NW corner of our property. Snohomish county has increased the setbacks near the stream for environmental reasons. Builder/developers that may be interested in the new higher zoning are not interested in our property because they fear the county will prohibit the development on footage too close
to the stream.
The county will not explain to us the exact setbacks unless we pay hundreds of dollars for a pre-application meeting.
As of today, 1-30-08, our family income is $514 per month. In march 08, our family income will increase to
$1610 per month.
We can't afford fees for pre-application meetings to hear a series of maybes from county bureaucrats regarding stream setbacks.
We can't afford expensive legal fees to sue the county for eliminating both potential buyer groups for our property.
Corrrection: we could probably sell for 50% of the value of our property and thereby condemning ourselves to a low quality retirement after of 45 years of hard work and tax paying.
If we took out a home equity loan to to sue the county, and lost, the quality of our retirement would be further reduced.
We are looking for any help or suggestions that anyone may be willing to provide..
Thank you - Steve & Maria Laiken 2313 190 st SE Bothell WA 98012 - 425-481-5077