R-48 Poses Moral Problem, Opponents Say Groups Claim Measure Undermines Responsibility, Community

When voters decide Referendum 48 on Nov. 7, more than property rights will be at stake.

It’s a war over values.

Church and community groups joining the fight say R-48 undermines the notion of community, that individuals sometimes must sacrifice for the public good.

Serving in the military, paying school taxes even if childless and limiting property uses if they impact others - it’s all part of what people do to build and sustain community life, they argue.

“Where it takes us is a society that is more and more fragmented, with everyone competing with each other to build their own livelihood, and no sense of responsibility to their community,” said John Boonstra of the Washington Association of Churches, which opposes the measure.

“R-48 presents us with a serious moral problem.”

Supporters say the measure restores a fundamental right trampled by government bureaucrats - private property ownership.

“We want to restore the freedom to individuals by taking power from government,” said Tom McCabe of the Building Industry Association, a major contributor to R-48. “We don’t want a government that does too much, or takes too much or has too much power.”

Referendum 48 declares that property owners are due compensation from taxpayers when government regulations adopted for public benefit reduce the value of private property.

Supporters say the law would make governments think twice before enacting new restrictions on the use of private property.

Brett Bader, a consultant promoting the referendum, takes issue with all the talk of public duty.

“I find it alarming people are willing to toss out their constitutional rights so quickly,” said Bader, of the Madison Group.

“The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says property can’t be taken without just compensation and that is all this seeks to do.

“A lot of people feel threatened by the heavy hand of government,” he continued. “It’s really a question of whose power should increase. Should government bureaucrats have more and more and more say over what people can do with their own property?

“That’s the big issue. Anything else is a red herring.”

Others see only selfishness in the measure.

“This idea of paying people for any benefit they have to give their community is a new one,” said Don Hopps of the Coalition for a Liveable Washington, a union of religious, labor, and environmental groups.

“I mean I’d like to know if the people who support this thing think every time we draft someone into the armed services, do they get paid commensurately?”

The common good - not just individual desires - needs to be considered, Hopps said.

“This thing takes us in a dramatically different direction. I mean this absolutist idea of property rights might have worked for about two weeks in Deadwood, S.D., a long time ago, or in some early mining towns, but we’re way past that now.”

Hopps and other critics see a responsibility that comes with property ownership, rightfully expressed in certain land-use restrictions that benefit the public.

They argue that Referendum 48 sets a new, lower standard of civic responsibility.

“It goes to what we feel is the meaning of ownership and property rights. Where does the stewardship responsibility stop and start?” said David Harrison of the University of Washington’s Northwest Policy Center. “This resets that level a lot lower.

“It very much makes the presumption that there’s a relatively limited list of things property owners are expected to do.”

Take Rep. Dale Foreman’s example of the apple orchard.

Foreman, R-Wenatchee, House Majority Leader and a gubernatorial candidate, helped push the property rights measure through the House.

While addressing a group of Wenatchee Realtors over lunch in August, Foreman explained how the measure would work.

Say an orchardist couldn’t spray the outlying rows of apple trees in a field because spray would drift through windows onto school children. Taxpayers would have to pay the orchard owner for the trees that are out of production, Foreman concluded, according to published reports.

Opponents say parents should be able to send their kids to school without worrying they’ll be sprayed with pesticide unless they fork over some cash.

But Referendum 48 supporters say it is needed to restore the proper balance of power between citizens and their government.

“Government has you over a barrel. That’s the reason for R-48,” said McCabe of the Building Industry Association. “When property is taken for public benefit, we have to remember who it is taken by - government.”

The problem, he said, is the voracious appetite of government. “The question is when is enough enough? When can you stick a fork in government and say it’s done? How much wetland do we need to preserve, how much habitat? When does it end?”

, DataTimes MEMO: These 2 sidebars appeared with the story: 1. REFERENDUM 48 Referendum 48 gives voters the chance to approve or reject Initiative 164, a property rights law passed by the Legislature earlier this year. Vote “approved” and I-164 becomes law. Vote “rejected” and it is repealed. Initiative 164 would: Require taxpayers to pay property owners for any loss in property value caused by regulations adopted for public benefit. Require taxpayers to pay for any maps, plans, or studies required by government to review land-use proposals. Require taxpayers to pay for economic impact studies of any land-use regulations. Property includes land or any improvement to it, water rights, crops, forest products, and resources that can be harvested or mined.

2. SIDES DISPUTE ACCURACY OF ADVERTISEMENTS’ CLAIMS The Ad: Radio, television and mail ads in favor of Referendum 48 highlight a Pierce County couple, Don and Mary Powell, as examples of how government regulations infringe on the rights of private property owners. The Powells, the ads say, have had half of their six acres near Buckley declared a wetland, lost control of 75 percent of that property and were told “they can’t even legally walk on” it. This happened “without a hearing, without a dime’s worth of compensation,” the print ads say. Opponents’ reaction: The No on 48 campaign has filed a complaint with the state Public Disclosure Commission, charging the ad is recklessly false. Pierce County officials say the Powells were never told they couldn’t walk on the land, and in fact, no law would give the county such power. As first reported in The Tacoma News Tribune, campaign opponents note the Powells receive a 20 percent reduction on their property tax because of the wetland declaration and the couple has never been denied a building permit to develop their land. Campaign response: Peter Stemberg of Citizens for Property Rights, the ads’ sponsor, said the Powells stick with their story that they were told not to walk on the land. As proof, he noted that they were told to post “No Trespassing” signs on the land. “It’s a citizen’s word against a government official’s word, and I know who I believe,” he said. The Powells’ land is on a Wetlands Inventory Map developed in 1987, he said. Although the couple receive a 20 percent reduction, the Powells say a wetland and buffer zone cover half their land. The ads stopped running late last week on radio and television; not because of the complaint but because the campaign had recorded new commercials, adviser Brett Bader said. Analysis: Attempts to “put a face” on complicated laws and regulations are always risky. In this case, the dispute may boil down to the word of one person against the other. The suggestion that a “No Trespassing” sign means the owner can’t walk on his or her own property seems fairly specious, and the phrase “without compensation” is obviously inaccurate because they do receive a reduction in taxes because of the wetlands designation. Whether the 20 percent reduction is a fair compensation for the designation is open to debate, but that’s not what the ads address.