Senate Panel Takes New Look At Property Rights Initiative

A Senate committee Tuesday picked through the wreckage of a failed property rights initiative for salvageable parts with which to forge a compromise between landowners and regulators.

But easy answers were in short supply, just as they were before the Nov. 7 defeat of Referendum 48.

But in a hearing before the Senate Government Operations Committee, one thing seemed clear:

The discussion is shifting away from the idea of paying landowners for property lost to regulation, as the referendum would have required, and focusing on overhauling regulation to ease the burden on property owners.

Though the referendum lost by about 60 percent of the vote, “The majority (of citizens) agree that the issue merits discussion,” said committee Chairwoman Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island. “We start this process with a clean sheet of paper.”

Haugen, who was a leader in the fight against R-48, said she would work hard to craft legislation in the coming 60-day legislative session to help property owners overburdened by land-use and building regulations.

But she warned that the effort must be focused and realistic if it is to succeed.

“We need to move beyond the anecdotes” of widespread hardship caused by regulation, or the lack of it, she said. Lawmakers, ordinary citizens, environmentalists and state and local government regulators must do three things: Identify the problems, find ways to prevent them, and find ways to fix them once they occur.

But judging by the testimony that followed, those simple goals will be hard to reach.

Local government officials blamed state government for much of the problem, saying the Legislature imposes land-use rules without flexibility and without money to compensate landowners.

That drew a retort from Sen. Bob McCaslin, R-Spokane, who said local governments have consistently opposed land uses such as “mother-in-law” apartments and “in-filling” to create higher densities.

“Is this just a lot of hollow talking, or are we going to sit down and do something this time around?” he asked. Greg Tisdale, who identified himself as a builder and planner, echoed the assertions of many when he said what is not needed is another layer of government to address regulations.

King County Assessor Scott Noble said one area that needs serious attention is revision of property tax law making it easier for counties to assess land based on its true and fair value when regulatory restrictions are taken into account. The panel agreed.