Praxus Posted July 31, 2004 Report Share Posted July 31, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124358,00.html KING COUNTY, Wash. — Residents of King County, Wash., will only be able to build on 10 percent of their land, according to a new law being considered by the county government, which, if enacted, will be the most restrictive land use law in the nation. Known as the 65-10 Rule (search), it calls for landowners to set aside 65 percent of their property and keep it in its natural, vegetative state. According to the rule, nothing can be built on this land, and if a tree is cut down, for example, it must be replanted. Building anything is out of the question. Most of the residents who will be directly affected by the regulations — those who own property in the rural areas of the country — are fuming. They see the new regulations as a land grab and a violation of their property rights. "My take is it's stealing — out and out stealing," said county resident Marshall Brenden. "They're taking 65 percent of your land that you fought for years to pay for, paid mortgages on and now you can't use it." But supporters and environmentalists say personal property rights do not trump the rights of a larger community to save the eco-system (search). "We're trying to keep the rural area a place that isn't just McMansions and ball courts, but instead has those natural processes," said Tim Trohimovich of the group 1000 Friends of Washington (search), which aims to promote healthy communities and cities while protecting farmland and forests. The plan is being pushed by King County Executive Ron Sims, who is currently running for governor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aturner Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 I agree that this is a terrible misuse of democratic power. As you have said, it is disgusting. This bears some resemblance to the "Right to Roam" acts of Britain, which have been recently restated in that country. However, I want to use this as an example to ask a broader question. How do we react to such news? Clearly, if you own property in King's County, you have the moral right - perhaps even the moral responsibility - to fight against enactment of the law. [Certainly I think we would agree that it would be immoral for you to act in favor of the law if you own such property]. And I think as Objectivists we would all support those in Kings County who fight against the law's enactment (and later, its enforcement). However, my assumption is that most of us are not directly affected by this news. How do we choose to react? I can describe three alternatives, based on characters from Ayn's novels: We may choose to actively fight against the law. We may organize letter writing campaigns, send in letters to the editor to Kings County newspapers, organize and contribute to a legal defense fund for landowners in Kings County, use this as an example in columns or letters to national media, or even refuse to trade with Kings County - based firms (or their customers). This, in a weak sense, I will call the "Dagny Taggart" response. I see Dagny as one willing to fight for change within the existing System, though I admit this example and the actiions listed don't quite fit her character. On the other hand, what would Howard Roark do? Nothing, I suppose, since this doesn't affect him directly. He doesn't worry about insignificant others, doesn't obsess on indirect threats to his values. Even if he owned property in Kings County, I suspect he would ignore the law (even if enacted) until he was brought into court for its violation. Then he could use a similar defense to that he has previously used, merely changing some of the details. Thus, the Howard Roark response. There remains the John Galt response. John Galt would probably first respond with a bitter laugh (and inner sadness). Then, he would use this fact to hasten the collapse of the system of contradictions. I see him quietly visiting the largest, most productive, landowners of Kings County and convincing them to join him in the Gulch. Of course this he would only do if someone like Gates happens to be such a landowner. The John Galt response, therefore, is to shrug and accelerate the natural consequence of such actions. I do not venture to pass judgement on any of the options - I find elements of validity in each. I am very interested in better understanding the value and morality of these responses. And so I ask you - how do YOU decide what to do when confronted with your emotional disgust over news such as this? Which of these responses to you believe to have the most value, and why? Is there an Objective standard to be considered here, or is the answer fully contextual? Or, is this an invalid question to consider? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed from OC Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Known as the 65-10 Rule (search), it calls for landowners to set aside 65 percent of their property and keep it in its natural, vegetative state. That's an interesting choice of words in the article: "calls for." More accurate terms would be compels, orders, commands, forces, etc. "Calls for" is almost a euphemism as used here, suggesting that the bill does something less than compel behavior. It really makes the initiation of force sound innocuous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prae Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 its terrible. why should this group of environmentalists be able to enforce their values on people who don't hold them? if someone buys property for themselves they should be able to decide what to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 its terrible. why should this group of environmentalists be able to enforce their values on people who don't hold them? if someone buys property for themselves they should be able to decide what to do with it. Well, they aren't environmentalists, they are county bureaucrats enforcing a dumb state law passed by dumb state bureaucrats, who were acting in a manner that they believed reflected The Will of The People. And in the abstract, it might well be the will of those people, until you frame it as "That means you can't build a lean-to on your lot". The values that they are enforcing are "obediance to the law" -- I don't know that this case particularly reflects specific values of the councilmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 Well, It looks like the people of Kings County will have to try legal proceedings, and failing that take over the council responsible with people they elect and force change. I shall follow this one closely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoyd Loki Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 If you're going to follow it closely, I'll give you your first fact. It is King County, not Kings County. Trust me, I live here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 If you're going to follow it closely, I'll give you your first fact. It is King County, not Kings County. Trust me, I live here! Now the trivia question: why is it named King County? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.