Property Measure Expensive, Study Says Referendum 48 Flaws Cited, But Critics Say Study Biased

Referendum 48 is the most radical property rights proposal in the country, and could cost taxpayers $6 billion, a University of Washington study says.

“We knew it was bad, but we didn’t know it was this bad,” said John Lamson, spokesman for the No on 48 campaign.

Voters will decide whether to adopt the measure Nov. 7, when it appears on ballots statewide.

Researchers who compiled the study released Thursday conclude Referendum 48 is no way to address problems with overregulation.

“This is a massive overreaction that would create a giant bureaucracy and huge taxpayer costs,” said researcher Glenn Pascall.

Backers of the referendum called the study biased and misleading.

The $100,000 report was paid for in part by the Bullitt Foundation, a leading Northwest environmental foundation, so it can’t be considered unbiased, said Dan Wood of Citizens for Property Rights.

“It’s a bunch of hogwash,” he said.

The university sought corporate backing for the study but the topic was too controversial for boardroom tastes, said David Harrison, who directs the university’s Institute for Public Policy and Management.

Members of the institute conducted the study.

“This study would say the same thing if it was funded by the Washington Association of Realtors,” Harrison said.

Timber and real estate interests are major contributors to the property rights campaign.

The measure would require taxpayers to pay property owners for any loss in property value due to regulations adopted for public benefit.

The measure covers all types of property, from water rights to crops and land. Property owners would be compensated for lost value even if they had no plans to develop their property.

No other property rights measure in the country is as far-reaching. Most cover only certain types of property, and require compensation only if a threshold of damage to property values is reached.

The study also criticizes the measure as inconsistent and vague. That ambiguity is sure to generate lawsuits, with taxpayers bearing most of the legal costs.

Taxpayers also would pay for economic impact studies the measure requires state and local governments to complete before any new regulation affecting property values is considered.

Those requirements would “build a huge new bureaucracy, just when many local governments are trying to cut costs,” Pascall said.

The team has not yet counted costs of state regulations taxpayers would have to bear.

Backers of the measure said costs wouldn’t go up if government doesn’t impose new regulations. “Just leave us alone,” said Jim Klauser of the Northwest Legal Foundation in Seattle, which wrote the property rights measure.

If Referendum 48 passes, some local governments may indeed be tempted to stop enforcing zoning and environmental laws, Pascall said. But that may not be possible.

Many regulations are required by federal rules, and governments may not be able to walk away from laws already on the books.

Because the measure is vague, researchers considered three possible scenarios in calculating its costs.

In the most conservative scenario, the measure was narrowly applied and taxpayer costs were estimated at $305 million a year for economic impact studies and $3.8 billion in compensation payments.

In the second scenario, which researchers called more likely, the measure was applied to a broader scope of land use and regulation, costing taxpayers $486 million in studies and up to $6 billion in compensation.

The third, most far-reaching scenario applied the rules to conventional zoning restrictions, such as height limitations and setbacks. In that instance taxpayers would pay nearly $1 billion a year in studies and $11 billion in payments to property owners.

, DataTimes