OLYMPIA — A divided state Supreme Court has thrown out a Bainbridge Island City Council ordinance that imposed a multiyear freeze on private property development in shoreline areas.
Five of the nine justices held Thursday that cities have the authority to impose such moratoriums. However, one of them, Justice Tom Chambers, said Bainbridge Island’s freeze was not reasonable.
The remaining four justices, led by Justice James Johnson, held that under the state constitution, local governments have no broad police power over shorelines, and that under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 there is no provision for cities to adopt such freezes.
Under that law, there is no authority that justifies the city’s attempt to impose a unilateral moratorium, Johnson wrote, noting, “municipalities possess only those powers given by the Legislature.”
“The state has the primary authority to manage shoreline development,” Johnson wrote.
Joining Johnson were Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justices Richard Sanders and Bobbe Bridge.
Chambers said that he sided with Johnson and his colleagues in throwing out the Bainbridge Island ordinance, but went on to say that he also agreed with the legal analysis of the four dissenting justices on the rights of local governments to impose moratoriums.
Chambers wrote that the city “overstepped its constitutional limits by passing rolling building development moratoria year after year.” However, he said he disagreed with the lead opinion’s conclusion “that the city lacks authority to impose any shoreline moratoria.”
“A reasonable moratorium may be a valid exercise of a municipality’s power as such an exercise of power may give the city time to create a comprehensive plan,” he wrote. “But a reasonable moratorium must be in place no longer than necessary to accomplish the necessary planning.”
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
