Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Washington State initiative to overturn land use

  1. #1
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587

    Washington State initiative to overturn land use

    Washington State initiative to overturn land use regulations.

    http://www.propertyfairness.com/text.htm

    Very similar to Oregon's Measure 37 but would not likely have the equal protection problem that Measure 37 did. Essentially this would roll back all land use regulations enacted after January 1996 unless the local government provides monetary compensation for the loss of value due to the regulation. Probably the most significant land use regulations enacted in the State of Washington since 1996 have been regulations protecting critical habitat areas.

    What does the collective throbbing brain think about the potential legality of this measure I wonder?

  2. #2
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Cold and Wet in ND
    Posts
    181
    I would like to know how they are going to prove loss of value and that it had anything to do with land use classification. Again I would love to be a consultant in an area where this measure would be initiated. It would be easy to find cause to show that money is owned and conversely that the land use change had no negative affect on value. Why aren't we all consultants?

  3. #3
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    The way I read it - it requires the jurisdiction to determine the fiscal impact on specific properties before enforcing the land use action.

    Of course- in all fairness maybe landowners should have to pay the jurisdiction when a land use action increases the value of property

  4. #4
    Cyburbian nerudite's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,502
    I think they tried to do this before, at least a few years ago. I even think the proposition passed and then was defeated in court. Ugh, my memory sucks. But I believe it was proposed by the same guy from Everett or Mukilteo that got the rollback on the vehicle licensing passed.

    I think it would be a crying shame to reverse the Growth Management Act legislation. It's the best GM legislation I've ever worked with, and I really like a lot of its elements (not just the wide range or critical areas, but requirements for transportation concurrency/LOS requirements, requiring capital facilities plans/funding that actually are tied to Comprehensive Plans, etc.). I loved working in Washington State, and that was mostly because of the excellent forethought they put into the GMA.

    Luckily, that's still my home state for voting... so if it goes to popular vote, I can at least do my part!

    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner
    Of course- in all fairness maybe landowners should have to pay the jurisdiction when a land use action increases the value of property
    Uhhhhh... if you pay taxes based on your assessment value in your community, they probably already do!

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Hello from Washington state
    Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 6
    Last post: 05 May 2008, 6:39 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last post: 10 Jul 2006, 11:10 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last post: 14 Mar 2006, 7:30 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last post: 22 Jul 2005, 11:23 AM
  5. Federal vs. state land use policy
    Perry's Cantina (archive)
    Replies: 0
    Last post: 07 Apr 1999, 1:39 PM