In October, the Democrat-led county council adopted new land-use ordinances meant to protect "critical areas," such as wetlands and wildlife habitat. The regulations require rural property owners to leave streamside buffers, and 50 to 65 percent of their land, undeveloped. Existing agricultural land is exempt, as is commercial timberland.
In response, the Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights, a landowners’ group, collected about 51,000 signatures for three ballot initiatives that would repeal the ordinances. King County and environmental groups took the initiatives to court, where a county judge ruled that state law prevents citizens from using referendums to overturn local land-use rules written to comply with the state’s Growth Management Act.
The Citizens’ Alliance has vowed to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court, but Tim Trohimovich, planning director for the environmental group 1,000 Friends of Washington, points out that the Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue — in favor of land-use rules.
Meanwhile, the Pacific Legal Foundation, a property-rights group, is preparing a lawsuit against the county. And county council member Kathy Lambert, R, who, along with the council’s other Republican members, voted against the ordinances, says the fight is far from over: "They may have woken up a sleeping giant."
- James Foley on The land transfer movement’s great public-lands hoax
- Michael/Teresa Newberry on How do Trump and Clinton differ on conservation?
- Joe Cosentino on What if I’m not white?
- David W Hamilton on How do Trump and Clinton differ on conservation?
- David Bittner on This July 4th, take a gander at the phone book