Seizure Of Property Rights

[HaloNoble6]

King County, Oregon officials are considering passing a law that will prohibit private land owners from using 65% percent of their land in order to preserve "natural vegetation." Read the Fox News article here.

In terms of activism, what can one do to directly deter things like this from being successful? Is there anyone in this forum that lives in county?

[Tom Rexton]

This sort of BS has been going on throughout the country since the beginning of the environmental movement. It just baffles me how the environmentalists have twisted the concept of "rights". Here's an incredible quote from the article:

"But supporters and environmentalists say personal property rights do not trump the rights of a larger community to save the eco-system." (emphasis added)

Since when did the majority have the right to steal for any purpose whatsoever? Immolating human beings for the good of the "eco-system". This is just disgusting, and right when I thought the environmental movement was in decline!

The only thing that can stop this is a major activism by the residents, such as writing letters to their legislators, which is highly unlikely to happen, especially in the Washinton-Oregon region.

[DavidOdden]

The only thing that can stop this is a major activism by the residents, such as writing letters to their legislators, which is highly unlikely to happen, especially in the Washinton-Oregon region.

If you want to see the details, you can read a mass of bureaucratese. I offer $100 to the first person who can read through the proposal and actually say what the law is. And I think this is how it might come to be. Nobody can possibly comprehend this law (a revision of an existing law), and it seems to give The People what they all want, namely a lovely place to live (and it really is lovely). So how can anyone argue against it? I mean, unless you happen to own some land that you suddenly can't do anything with, rendering it worthless. So all the county has to do is persuade enough people that it will have a minimal impact on ordinary people, and it won;t affect you .

One fact that should be of some cheer is that the idea has been kicking around for over 3 years.

[Thoyd Loki]

I live in King county, and it is Washington, not Oregon BTW. I saw a couple of signs that were incomprehensible on the side of a road, that related to this thing, but I did not know what it meant.

I will certainly vote against it at the least. Funny that it would be tried here. Do you know how much freaking vegetation is up here?

You are right about the lack of fight up here, Rexton, this is Democratic, latte booby land up here. Of course, we do have Tim Eyman.

[Fred Weiss]

King County, Oregon officials are considering passing a law that will prohibit private land owners from using 65% percent of their land in order to preserve "natural vegetation." 

It's hard to say for sure since the courts are so inconsistent on this issue, but I'd guess that such a law wouldn't survive a court challenge since it represents a blatant "taking" without compensation. One of the pro- property rights "public interest" law firms, such as the Institute for Justice, would very likely take the case and since apparently the law is so vague and almost impossible to define and thus enforce without arbitrariness, it would very likely be a "slam-dunk".

Fred Weiss

[DavidOdden]

It's hard to say for sure since the courts are so inconsistent on this issue, but I'd guess that such a law wouldn't survive a court challenge since it represents a blatant "taking" without compensation. One of the pro- property rights "public interest" law firms, such as the Institute for Justice, would very likely take the case and since apparently the law is so vague and almost impossible to define and thus enforce without arbitrariness, it would very likely be a "slam-dunk".

Fred Weiss

I wish you were right, but I'm willing to bet that it would survive a court challenge ($100: I'm serious). There is actually a state law that requires the county to engage in this silliness / arbitrariness. My reading of the changes in the existing ordinances is that it is essentially incomprehensible, but not vague (for example, the definition of Category IV wetlands is hard to parse and it does require reference to governmentally dictated lists which are subject to change; but it doesn't seem vague).

I don't know if there have been any successful legal challenges to zoning ordinances and the like, but a similar legal challenge by property owners in Snohomish county (just to the north) failed many moons ago, the result being that we essentially lost property via these "wetlands preservation" ordinances that prevented any use of the land. Still have to pay the damn taxes, though.

[Elle]

I live in Kitsap County, WA (not oregon) which is adjacent to King County. I wish I lived in King County though, just so I could vote against this ridiculous idea. It is entirely unconstitutional.

[DavidOdden]

I live in Kitsap County, WA (not oregon) which is adjacent to King County.  I wish I lived in King County though, just so I could vote against this ridiculous idea.  It is entirely unconstitutional.

Is this a matter that is up for a vote? Or just a Metro edict? (I strongly suspect the latter). I can't get a straight story and inquiring minds who aren't there anymore want to know.

[Thoyd Loki]

There is a website that has the info on this crap. [url=http://www.proprights.org] I haven't been able to fish that much through the site because it is poorly organized, but I believe it is up for a city council vote from what I could gather.