Give And Takings Readers Speak Their Mind On Property Rights Initiative
Initiative 164 has been described as the toughest “takings” law in the nation. It requires the state to reimburse property owners any time regulations intended to assure a public benefit reduce the property’s value.
It will become law unless opponents can collect enough signatures on Referendum 48 by Friday to put the matter on the ballot this fall.
Last month on this page, two readers came at the issue from different philosophical directions. Fred Ebel, a natural resource consultant from Colbert, argued that the initiative is necessary to protect individual property owners, large and small, from value-robbing regulations.
Paul Lindholdt, a member of the Inland Empire Public Lands Council, warned readers that the Wise Use Movement, with which Initiative 164 and similar laws are popular, shares tight connections with the militant conservative thinking behind the Oklahoma City bombing.
We received numerous responses, but none more succinct than this one from C.F. Brenton, Spokane: “Ebel is right. Lindholdt is crazy.” Here are other representative comments:
Susan L. Bradbury, president, Washington Chapter, American Planning Association:
“The Office of Financial Management estimates that I-164 will cost Washington taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over the next two years….
“Unfortunately I-164 will place every neighborhood and property owner at risk by effectively ending planning and zoning laws. The very standards that protect property values and the rights of land owners will be lost, plus incompatible land uses such as taverns, adult book stores or businesses could locate beside schools or in residential neighborhoods. “In addition, I-164 will create more costly government, more red tape and endless litigation.”
Al Hasselbacher: “I’ve seen some pretty terrible examples of what some of the environmental regulations do to people in agriculture and to lenders that lend to them…. I think the pendulum has swung too far to one side and definitely needs to come back, and Initiative 164 seems to be a good step in that direction. I would agree with comments of Mr. Ebel that the average citzen is benefiting from this, not just large corporations as has often been intimated. Commenting on Mr. Lindholdt’s article,… I had never heard of any movement called wise use. I think it’s a good title, and since I’m a supporter of private property rights, I kind of resent the implication that my thinking is tied to extremists. I certainly don’t support the militias or any of that type of thinking.”
Gary Woodmansee, Curlew: “Initiative 164 is the poorly written takings initiative that will raise taxes, increase bureaucratic red tape, effectively gut environmental and zoning regulations. It will require neighborhoods to pay unscrupulous developers full compensation for a reduction in value in order to stop a high-rise or a toxic dump site or other inappropriate developments or land uses in the neighborhood.”
Richard Grant, Cheney: “For people to survive in this world, we need clean and abundant air, water and earth. Interestingly, the plants and other animals of our world need the same three things. “Since it seems that we are all part of the same ecosystem, needing much the same things from our environment, all species will be affected by shortages of resources. “Unfortunately, all species are not as adaptable as humans. They can’t control their environments as we can. Therefore, we must be very mindful of our eco-mates and make wise decisions that are of benefit to all species. With these things in mind, we can proceed to make policies that will allow property owners the maximum usage of their lands without causing limited access to resources by other species. “If a person has his/her property rights restricted due to infringement on another species, I say compensate that person for the actual lost value (not an attorney’s intrepretation, but a real person’s value) but continue the restrictions as necessary for the affected species.”
Kay Stoltz, Spokane: “Most people understand that these (land-use codes) are needed to enable us to live comfortably together. These laws and codes also protect our investments in our homes and businesses. It is the same with the larger environment we live in. “Mistakes have been made, perhaps, but what about the mistakes when timber interests were allowed free rein? There is not a free lunch. We need to make the choices now to protect this land and all in it.”
Fred A. Hurand, director, Inland Empire Section, Washington Chapter, American Planning Association: “Very little public debate occurred either before the initiative went to the Legislature or during the legislative process. This initiative has such drastic consequences it deserves the debate needed to allow the people of the state to decide its efficacy. Placing it on the ballot would allow us all to decide on its merits.”
Lori Blau: “When the wise-use groups started they were pretty much ignored by the environmental groups, until they started having some influence, and then they tried to paint them as industry front groups and run them down and dismiss them that way. And now in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing they’re trying to tie all the wise-use groups to any kind of militia or any thing you can to discredit them.”
Mike Petersen, Republic: “While Mr. Ebel can cite a few instances of “little guy” property owners who have had restrictions placed on development, I and others can point to hundreds of thousands of acres of abused forests, silted-in creeks and washed-out roads. All of this has been created by an inadequately regulated industry that has brought dozens of species - including salmon, bull trout, wolves, grizzly bears, lynx, to name a few - to the brink of extinction in our region. What these landowners have forgotten is that along with property rights is responsibility.”
Janet Callen, Coeur d’Alene: “If a private landowner wanted to dump toxic chemicals in or near a stream on his property we could theoretically have to pay him not to do so. Wow, what a potential for environmental blackmail.”
Hal Hayes, Spokane: “Fred Ebel is right on while Paul Lindholdt must resort to fallacious scare tactics instead of facts to generate support for his position. The fact is that overzealous and arrogant government bureaucrats have used the clean air, clean water, and endangered species acts to promulgate ridiculous regulations that are way beyond the intent of the original acts, and then dictatorially persecuted private individuals.
“The result was Initiative 164 which was devised as a method of putting the brakes on the heavyhanded bureaucrats. It would not have been necessary had some common sense been used in the first place by government bureaucrats.
“But, then, government officials are not known for their use of common sense to solve problems.”
Terrence V. Sawyer, Spokane: “Initiative 164 is unnecessary. The U.S. Constitution protects landowners whose property is taken for a public purpose. The beachfront landowners in California and South Carolina won their cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. These cases and others bind the local courts to require compensation when land is taken, public access mandated, or restrictions have severe economic impacts. Initiative 164 does not promise an end to lawsuits. It promises more, because its reach is so broad and the possibility of winning a big judgment is so tempting, and it requires the taxpayer to pay the attorney fees for both sides….
Glenn Lundell, Spokane: “Mr. Ebel did a very excellent job of presenting his viewpoint based on different examples and the reason that goes behind them. I was very disappointed to read Mr. Lindholdt’s comments because all he did was attack the other people…. All I saw was criticism - and very rash criticism, I might add - of anyone who was supporting 164.
“I modestly support it, and not violently but modestly, because I believe that property rights need to have some protection from some of the government takings. “Unfortunately, it seems to be a common practice of many in the environmental movement and some of the other causes to attack others rather than present facts.”