Ballot Initiative 933 (known as I-933 or "The Property Fairness Initiative" by its supporters, the "Developers Initiative" by its opponents) is a highly controversial land use initiative that will appear on the ballot in November elections in Washington State. I-933 has gained national attention and has begun to figure prominently in debates regarding the rights of property owners--particularly big businesses--and laws that protect the environment and preserve natural resources.[1]
Content of the proposal
I-933 calls for governments to compensate property owners who have lost money because of land use or environmental rules. If the government fails to pay property owners, the property owners would then be able to use their land as they wished. The government must either compensate property owners for complying with existing laws, or waive those laws.[2]
Voters will decide on the measure in the 2006 general election on November 7th.
Controversy
Supporters
Supporters of the I-933, led by the Washington Farm Bureau, argue that the proposal will protect private property owners from "excessive land-use regulations or proposed regulations that damage the use and value of private property" [3].
A significant portion of the financial support for the campaign has come from out of state contributors, the largest portion from a group known as the Americans for Limited Government. ALG has contributed over $200,000 to Washington’s initiative, and similar amounts to the measures in Oregon, Montana, Idaho and others. This organization is chaired by Howard Rich, a real-estate entrepreneur from New York who has contributed over $2.4 million to fund a variety of land-use campaigns in California, Idaho, Oklahoma, Arizona, Montana, Missouri, and Washington.
Other endorsers include:
- Bainbridge Citizens United
- Spokane Pro-America
- Washington Cattleman’s Association
- Washington Contract Loggers Association
- various county Farm Bureaus from Washington State
Opponents
Opponents of the initiative question why taxpayers should have "to pay some land owners to follow laws already on the books or waive those protections for the community" [4]. Opponents of the proposal also point out that the Washington Farm Bureau represents primarily large corporations and has an established record of supporting Republican candidates with PAC money [5]. The Association of Washington Cities argues the Initiative will cost taxpayers 4.5 billion dollars a year in claims against municipalities. Environmentalists claim "Initiative 933 would dismantle ... (environmental) protections, making it extremely difficult to enforce the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act." Lobbyists in favor of the bill dismiss these accusations as scare tactics. [6]
Organizations that oppose the initiative include:
- the American Planning Association,
- American Lung Association of Washington
- League of Women Voters of Washington
- Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland
- Washington Association of Churches
- Washington Conservation Voters
- Washington State Building Trades
- Washington State Council of Fire Fighters
- Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce
Precedents
I-933 is similar to Oregon's Measure 37 passed in the 2004 November election. [7]
The Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies has begun to document the effects of Measure 37[8]
Confusion regarding "eminent ___domain"
In the state of Washington, eminent ___domain is only allowable when the government then uses the property it has taken for a public purpose. It is prohibited from seizing a property using the power of eminent ___domain and then turning it over to a private interest. The Washington State Constitution protects against this action in Section 16--Eminent Domain, which reads as follows:
No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having been first made, or paid into court for the owner...
Whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question, and determined as such, without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public: Provided, That the taking of private property by the state for land reclamation and settlement purposes is hereby declared to be for public use.[9]
The relation of I-933 to other legislative action involving eminent ___domain has caused confusion for both supporters and opponents of the initiative. This is due to wording in the document which makes reference to both eminent ___domain and regulatory takings, when only the regulatory takings are relevant.
External links
- An article on the projected costs of I-933
- An article comparing I-933 to Oregon's Measure 37
- An article in the Seattle Times examining public perception of I-933
- Washington Constitution Full text of the Washington Constitution provided by the Washington State Legislature
- ^ [l
- ^ [www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i933.pdf The full text of I-933]
- ^ [1]
- ^ http://www.noon933.org/
- ^ http://www.wsfb.com/ See 2006 election cycle endorsements]
- ^ http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/284357_property08.html
- ^ [2]
- ^ [3]
- ^ Washington Constitution