The following editorial appeared Monday in the Olympian of Olympia.

The state Supreme Court ended its year with an important land use decision, reaffirming the ability of government officials to set zoning rules without fear of a forced public vote.

The 7-2 decision, written by Justice Tom Chambers, said local government’s land use decisions, such as Thurston County’s critical areas ordinance, are not subject to citizen referenda.

It’s a good decision because county commissioners and city council members need to take a comprehensive approach to planning and zoning matters. They need to balance high-density development against the need to create open space, greenbelts and parks. Citizen referenda would undermine that planning process and force a piecemeal approach to zoning. The Supreme Court ruling protects those decision makers from being second-guessed by voters at every turn.

The state’s high court set the nonvote standard a dozen years ago in a case that originated in Whatcom County. The so-called Brisbane case was one of the first challenges to the state’s Growth Management Act, which was adopted by the Legislature in the early 1990s to end urban sprawl. The goal of the Growth Management Act is to channel population growth and development into urban areas, allowing rural areas to be used for agriculture, timber, hobby farms and homes with acreage. In the Brisbane case, the high court at the time said “no” to public votes on those critical zoning decisions.

The most recent case was brought by environmental advocacy group 1000 Friends of Washington, King County and the Center for Environmental Law and Policy. They sued Rodney McFarland, a private citizen, who had sought a public vote on three land use ordinances adopted by the King County Council on Dec. 1, 2004.

McFarland wanted to place all three ordinances on the countywide ballot. A King County Superior Court judge blocked the referenda. Now the state’s Supreme Court has upheld the lower court ruling.

“When the people of the state require action from a local legislature or executive body, those actions are not subject to a veto via a referendum,” Justice Chambers wrote for the seven-member majority. “We reached that decision on several grounds, including the fact that the county was required by the state to designate and protect critical areas and that the state had established elaborate procedures for public participation that were inconsistent with local up and down votes.”

This decision is not likely to affect the high court’s decision on Thurston County’s comprehensive plan, which is before the state Court of Appeals. That case is not about a public vote, but instead hinges on whether the county’s plan meets Growth Management Act requirements to protect the environment and set aside sufficient land in rural areas of the county. The Growth Management Hearings Board has sided with environmentalists and ruled the county plan out of compliance with the state law. The county has appealed.

The Growth Management Act rightfully requires decision makers to involve the public in setting land use and zoning laws. That’s where public input belongs.