A few farmers want it, most city governments around here don’t.
That description is one simplistic way to sum up Initiative 933, a statewide, property rights initiative that will appear on the Nov. 7 ballot.
At the core of the initiative is a rollback on government regulation of private property.
“Over the last decade governmental restrictions on the use of property have increased substantially, creating hardships for many, and destroying reasonable expectations of being able to make reasonable beneficial use of property,” the initiative states.
The initiative would amend state law to repeal almost every regulation on property use enacted in the last 10-plus years. If passed, it would mean that only regulations that were in effect as of Jan. 1, 1996, would be enforced.
Bill Trimm, community development manager for the city of Mill Creek, believes that if passed, I-933 could open the door to unusual land use proposals, such as a junkyard adjoining a neighborhood of single-family homes. A city or county would have to allow the use or pay the landowner.
“Government is supposed to provide for the general health, safety and welfare of the community,” Trimm says. “That’s what zoning does.”
Already, several area city councils have passed resolutions opposing the measure, in part because of a stipulation that would require governments to compensate property owners when land use regulations affect how land can be used.
The Lake Forest Park City Council strongly voted to oppose I-933.
“There was no question, not even a blink,” said Lake Forest Park mayor Dave Hutchinson. The initiative has the potential to affect a sensitive areas ordinance previously passed by the Council, he said.
“We would have to go back to not enforcing that because it would cost too much if someone decided they wanted to build something on a sensitive area,” Hutchinson said.
The initiative cites Article 1, Section 16 of the state Constitution, which says “that government not take or damage property without first paying just compensation to the property owner” as a legal basis for the compensation claim.
According to the property fairness coalition Web site, The Washington Farm Bureau filed Initiative 933 because the bureau has urged the Legislature to protect the use and value of private property against increasing government regulation. The bureau says that such regulations, which include environmental requirements in areas deemed “sensitive” like streams, rivers and wetlands, have harmed property values.
As far as the cost to cities, elected officials in Lynnwood and Mill Creek did not direct staff to estimate the potential financial costs of I-933, but in Mountlake Terrace, the potential numbers are staggering.
The city of Mountlake Terrace might owe $8 million to $10.5 million to property owners if I-933 passes, said city manager John Caulfield. The fact that the city has so many sensitive areas and steep slopes, including two major waterways, is what drives that cost upward.
Before voting against the initiative, Shoreline Councilmembers were provided with a copy of a fiscal analysis prepared by the Association of Washington Cities (AWC). The AWC study estimated that the state-wide costs of I-933 to cities would range between $3.5 billion and $4.5 billion.
Since there are 21,000 households in Shoreline, the impact would be between $50.6 million and $64.6 million in the city, according to a press release.
The initiative would have a devastating effect on the city, said Shoreline mayor Bob Ransom. Shoreline incorporated in 1995, but all land use regulations in the city have been revised since Jan. 1, 1996.
“There was a very strong feeling among council members that we had to do that,” said Ransom about opposing I-933.
Shoreline Enterprise editor Brooke Fisher contributed to this report.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
