Commissioners Cavalier About Property Rights Concerns

In the past two years, we Spokanites have heard much about the state Growth Management Act. For a year and a half, the 12-member GMA steering committee of elected officials has been preparing the countywide planning policies, or CWPPs, as the first step in implementing the law here.

The process involved public participation, scoping, technical committees, advisory committees, consultants, public meetings, hosted “coffee hours,” a monthly newsletter, a mailing list, telephone surveys, a telephone hotline, production of educational videotapes, written questionnaires and information packets. Those directly involved consider it a monumental effort.

I became involved only recently, after seeing a notice in the newspaper that copies of the draft CWPPs were available at the county planning department. A subsequent notice told of a public hearing on Dec. 20. At the bottom of the notice it said, “Public participation counts.”

As a concerned but busy citizen, the least I could do was read the CWPPs before they were approved.

Since its inception, I had sensed the Growth Management Act could mean bigger government, more rules, regulations and restrictions, and less freedom. I reviewed the CWPPs and was shocked at what I found.

The Legislature established 13 goals to guide counties and cities in their planning. Goal 6 was “to protect property rights.” However, except for a listing in the plan’s introduction, there was no further mention of this important goal.

Other goals of the act were well defined, discussed and evaluated, sometimes repeatedly, throughout the 69-page document. But the words “property rights” never appeared again.

At the public meeting, I asked the commissioners how this separate and distinct goal could have been overlooked.

Commissioner Skip Chilberg assured me that property rights would be protected by the policies, citing “adequate transportation” as an example of a property right. Fifteen other interested parties made comments but few mentioned or questioned the effects of the policies on property rights.

At 11:45 p.m., the commissioners closed the hearing to public comment and agreed to postpone their decision until certain questions were answered by the planning staff. The next meeting was set for 9 a.m., Dec. 22.

Not accepting Mr. Chilberg’s government-oriented interpretation, I wrote to the commissioners, requesting a fair evaluation of basic private property rights, how they are related to the other goals and how such rights might be affected by the new policies. That was the afternoon of Dec. 21.

The meeting started promptly the next morning. John Mercer, long-range planning administrator for Spokane County, distributed the commissioners’ seven “suggested changes” to the CWPPs and briefly explained them.

To my surprise, item No. 2 related to my comments and would be an addition to the CWPPs’ statement of principles. According to Mr. Mercer, the new passage, taken directly from the Growth Management Act, reads: “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.”

Commissioner Steve Hasson was the only one to question if a mere restatement of the act was enough. No public comment was permitted.

Commissioner Pat Mummey moved for approval, Chilberg seconded and Hasson dissented. The CWPPs were thereby adopted.

I was compelled to raise my hand. (We were not in school, but it seemed like the polite thing to do.) As chairman, Hasson explained that further comment would not be taken but then he allowed me to speak after I promised not to make additional comments on the CWPPs.

I did have further comment on them but I restricted my remarks to the process I’d witnessed.

In my opinion, I said, the changes were significant enough to justify further public review. Mr. Hasson acknowledged that changes, modifications and additions had occurred since closing public comment but he said, quoting Mrs. Mummey, they were not significant. He thanked me for my input.

It is no secret that such policies calling for more public services and for the preservation of lands and open space will have a significant impact on land use and thus property rights. When government makes such land use regulations and restrictions, basic property rights are affected and, unfortunately for the property owner, they are usually diminished.

I believe the Legislature intended the language “to protect property rights” to require that all of the act’s goals be evaluated and implemented to balance public needs and private property rights. Any meaningful attempt at finding this balance must include a reasonable evaluation of the inherent rights that come with property ownership.

The policies as approved do not address this relationship and are therefore inconsistent with the mandates of the Growth Management Act.

A two-minute word processing addition of the GMA language and a 10-minute, closed-to-the-public discussion does not compensate for 18 months of ignorance and neglect of the property right goal.

In the end, Commissioner Mummey and I did agree on one thing. The change to the CWPPs regarding the protection of property rights was insignificant.

xxxx