Property Law: Boon Or Doom? Backer Says It Returns Rights To Landowners; Opponent Foresees Drawn-Out Court Battles

A gubernatorial candidate who backs a property rights measure acknowledged Thursday the proposal contains some murky language, but urged voters to embrace it anyway to force government to deal with the issue.

House Majority Leader Dale Foreman, R-Wenatchee, told an audience that if Referendum 48 passes, “we will do our best to clarify it” at the Legislature. No legislation is perfect, he said.

Foreman said passage of the measure would give citizens the leverage needed to make government confront the so-called “takings” issue.

“How in the hell am I going to deal with this thing if it passes?” Pierce County Executive Doug Sutherland asked during the 90-minute face-off. The forum was sponsored by the Washington Research Council.

Sutherland said the measure’s often-vague provisions will be a boon to lawyers and will cost taxpayers many millions of dollars. “Government is not somebody else. It is you,” he said.

Sutherland contended that the measure would actually impede developers, with lawyers fighting in court over what its provisions meant.

The proposal, to go to voters Nov. 7, would require state and local governments to pay property owners for land values lost to regulation.

It also would require governments to conduct economic impact studies before imposing regulations.

Foreman, who last week announced he was running for governor, was a leader in passage of the measure by the 1996 Legislature. It was placed on the ballot after foes led a successful referendum drive.

Foreman told the small crowd at the Westin Hotel forum that the measure would return the state to a time when private property rights were considered as basic as freedom of speech and religion.

He said the U.S. Supreme Court in 1936 decided property rights were “less important than other rights” and governments since then have gradually encroached on property rights under the banner of “public good” and “public benefit.”

“People are saying they’re not going to take it anymore,” he said. “I think it (the measure) will pass. I didn’t think so until a few weeks ago, but I’ve been traveling around the state and I think it is going to pass.”

Sutherland conceded that government regulations can and do economically damage citizens, but said this measure “is not the answer.”

He said major court fights over the proposal’s meaning will delay development and hurt commerce, not help it.

“What do I tell Intel when they try to get permits” to build a newly announced plant in Pierce County? he asked.

“Do I tell them we’ll need six months just to do an economic analysis?”