I-933 is a lose-lose proposition for most

A new University of Washington study estimates voter passage of Initiative 933 would cost taxpayers $7.8 billion, more than $1,000 for every state resident.

The alternative is to waive any restriction on development imposed by land-use regulations adopted since 1995.

The Property Fairness Initiative would undo a decade of planning because, from the perspective of the Washington Farm Bureau, regulations deprive landowners of the freedom to do what they will on their property, short of endangering human health and safety.

This is a lose-lose proposition for the majority of Washington residents, whose property interests are preserved by reasonable zoning and land-use plans that prevent developers from introducing who-knows-what into their neighborhoods, or nearby.

It’s also a loser for the environment, which many land-use guidelines are intended to protect.

Mostly, I-933 is a prescription for the same kind of paralysis that has struck Oregon since a similar but less broad measure was approved by voters there in 2004. The result has been an epic rush to the courthouse to file claims that so far exceed $4 billion.

One enterprising claimant wants $203 million, or he will go ahead and start mining pumice on property he owns within the Newberry National Volcanic Monument. You can’t blame a guy for trying.

But Oregon’s Measure 37 is nothing compared with I-933. The Oregon law addressed only real estate. The Washington proposal would compensate owners of personal property aggrieved by limits on the use of boats or cars.

And, as a legal analysis that accompanies the economic impact study says, I-933 raises issues that do not pertain in Oregon. Washington’s shoreline and growth management acts, for example, do not allow officials to grant waivers. The initiative does not amend those laws. The question of just what they can do will likely end up in court, as will many a disagreement over just what constitutes adequate compensation.

Seattle land-use attorney Keith Dearborn, who helped prepare the legal analysis for the UW College of Architecture and Urban Planning study, says Liberty Lake and Spokane Valley could be especially jeopardized because they are too young to have zoning or land-use plans that go back to 1995. It’s not clear what regulations would govern if the plans they have put in place since incorporation are swept away, he says.

Even Spokane County’s comprehensive plan goes back just five years. The plan in place before 2001 dated to the mid-1980s, as did zoning. Those codes were much more flexible than the new plan. It was a stretch to call them plans at all.

Rich Munson is a Spokane Valley City Council member and vice president of the Association of Washington Cities. Just the potential cost of I-933 litigation make him shudder.

Should the city deny a developer approval for an apartment complex in the middle of a single-family residential area, for example, the developer would probably sue. If the apartments are approved, and the city demands expanded rights of way in order to widen the streets, homeowners will sue.

“It’s going to be chaos until we get this all figured out,” says Munson, speaking for himself, not the association.

“As an individual, I’m horrified it might pass,” he adds.

Munson and Dearborn say the initiative sponsored by the Washington Farm Bureau might have been avoided if the Legislature had heeded appeals for relief from some of the more onerous provisions of state land use law. Now, using the same analogy, they say voters face a proposal that tosses out baby with bathwater.

Since the petitions submitted by I-933 backers were certified by the Secretary of State in August, the initiative has been off the radar screen of most residents. With “property fairness” in the title, the proposal was an easy sell for signature gatherers. Property rights have been a bedrock of American life since before the revolution, of 1776 that is.

But initiative backers misrepresented I-933 by including an inflammatory but bogus reference to potential government use of eminent domain to obtain private property. Thanks to a wrongheaded U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year, eminent domain has become a convenient red flag for all manner of claims regarding government misuse of power. This is not about land condemnation.

Voters who want to learn more from a non-biased source might try the Association of Washington Cities Web site at www.awcnet.org, which contains links to news articles and the Web sites of the groups supporting and opposing I-933. Also, a public forum has been scheduled for Oct. 19th at the Washington State University Academic Center on the Riverpoint Campus.

Study up, or hold your peace when a four-plex shows up across your property line.