"property rights initiative"

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Will Atlas, Feb 24, 2006.

  1. Sisu

    Sisu Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    some where cool,usa
    This is so true...I watch my neighbors pour shit on their plants, lawn, etc. all spring, summer, fall plus the lawn care trucks arrive and spray their poison every where all spring, summer and fall too. This has always pissed me off. My grandfather taught me to use cow shit, aged chicken shit, fish parts (bury them deep or the cats and bears arrive) for good flower and plant yield. He also had home treatments for bugs that used vinegar, cinnamon, ground pepper, having lots of bird houses around the yard as well as a few bat houses, plus he would collect lady bugs and bring them home for his garden, it was not the in thing back then to buy bugs for you garden.iagree
     
  2. Tom O'Riley

    Tom O'Riley Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Snohomish
    Shouting was just a figure of speech, what i was getting to is that most farms whould like to do more to protect the land and stream side areas but just can't aford it so a efort to know were they are coming from is very important and then we might get to help them and guide the proccess for example the Owens river projects of Cal Trout. Were the fishing groups prvided and installed fencing to controll cattle for the rancher and improved both sides of the fence so to speak
     
  3. FT

    FT Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,264
    Likes Received:
    110
    Location:
    Burlington, WA
    The example Riverun gave about something is happening right now up here in Skagit County is also exactly what I was talking about in my prior posts on this topic. When Riverun bought his land, it was legal to build one house on 20 acres of land, and there was no requirement that a house be built withing 200' of an existing road. Now the government is going to change the rules and only a allow a house on 20 acres within 200' of an existing road (note this is a public road, not a forest road). And if he gets all of his building permits, septic permit, well permit, well drilled, building plan approved by this July, which as he pointed out is going to be very difficult, he will be able to build one house.

    Remember, when he bought the property, he was allowed to build 8 houses on this land he purchased. Like I sais previously, I see this as a governmental taking of his property by government regulation, and that of dubious "public interest" value.

    o mykiss,

    Although you are correct about the courts not seeing zoning changes as coming under the "takings clause" of the Amendments to the Constitution (and it is not the 13th or 14th Amendments for those of you who don't know, it is within the Bill of Rights, or first 10 Amendments the takings clause is found), I still think it is a form of taking private property. I also suspect that we are going to see more and more of these types of iniatives in our various states as an attempt by those adversely affected (like Riverun) to put an end to takings by regulation. I also predict this takings by regulations issue is going to go back into the federal court system and be heard by the Supreme Court in the next 10 years or so.
     
  4. Will Atlas

    Will Atlas Guest

    Ok, here's the deal. The problem with the government, and it will always be a problem no matter who is in power is that its not flexible. This is the nature of a beauracracy. Now, I am firmly against the Property Rights Initiative, because largely I think it will be used agaisnt reasonable zoning in Rural king county, with cases mostly built around speculated value, eg, if the zoning was different I could build 5 houses, or if that pesky wetland wasnt there I could have a horse barn and fill it with crap. I think the government should compensate/make exceptions for people who are unable to use their property at all because of changes in Zoning policy.
    I'm glad this thread has generated so much interest, its rare to see people articulating real political opinions in this country.
    Will
     
  5. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,805
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Tacoma
    I guess this is where I tend to disagree. Purchasing land is an investment, and provides not guarantee of return. Specifically, a change in zoning isn't the goverment taking the land, but rather changing what you can do with it. It's still your land, but the legal use of it has changed by definition to something else. Since the specific land was not developed before the zoning change, the owner of that land must comply.

    While I don't like the repercussions of this, the onus is on the land owner to understand and follow the course of regulatory changes that can and will affect the use of their land.


    -- Cheers
    -- James

    PS FT, you mention that this is a particular for of taking land. Could you provide some of the logic you use to arrive at this conclusion, as honestly, I'm not sure how to think about this problem from your perspective, and would like to understand this issue from other viewpoints!
     
  6. FT

    FT Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,264
    Likes Received:
    110
    Location:
    Burlington, WA
    James,

    I view it as a regulatory taking of Riverun's property simply because when he bought the land, he used due dilegence and found it was land that could have one house built on 20 acres with no restriction as to how close a house had to be to an existing "improved road". Now the government is changing the land use regulations to only allow a house withing 200' of an existing improved road. This means that Riverun will not be allowed to have any more than one house built on the 160 acres he purchase despite the fact that when he purchased them, he would have been able to have a house on any 20 acre piece.

    This is a taking in my view because he had no input into the change, is unable to have his 160 acres excluded (unless he has building permits in place for all 8 of the 20 acres building lots prior to July 1st this summer-a virtual impossibility), and has no legal recourse to get back the purpose for which he purchased this land. This means he will not be able to build the house he desired to build on 1 of the parcels for himself, not will he be able to sell the remaining 7 parcels because he will not be able to provide access to them since there is not an existing road.

    This land use regulation change has with out a doubt changed the value of his land, and it also if forcing him to purchase a different 20 acre parcel to build his house. This regulation change also means that there will not be anything other than timber production allowed on his 160 acres despite that not being why he bought it in the first place.

    Notice I said nothing about value lost because of not being able to sell his land to a developer. Simply losing the ability to build a house on any of the 20 acre parcels, which is why he purchased it in the first place, seems to me to be a taking of his propery by regulation. Then when you add in the fact that timber land is less valuable than land on which you can build a house, the new regulation has also taken value from his purchase price because his land will be worth less as soon as the new regulation takes effect July 1st.

    As far as the onus being on the land owner, he practiced due dilligence when he bought this land, which shows he paid attention to what was going on before he bought it. Now I ask you: How can he possibly have known this change was a possibility? Therefore, I don't see how the onus is on him. Quite the contrary, I see the onus on the land use board and logging operations, who did not want the public to know they were looking into this change.

    Why should the land use board, the logging companies (who wanted the change for their economic benefit), or the county not have to pay Riverun for taking away his ability to build a house on land that was perfectly OK to build on prior to the land use change the Forestry Board and logging companies wanted for their exclusive benefit?
     
  7. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,805
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Tacoma
    Interesting... That clarifies a lot in my mind on how your thought process about this works :)

    Personally, I'll leave it at "we should agree to disagree" as I think you're firmly entrenched in you're view point.

    But none the less, there definately is some strong logic in the idea you presented :) I think there are counter arguments to the whole thing, and as I said, we should agree to disagree. But on the whole, I would most assuredly support your stance that large land owners in this case really did buffalo Riverrun into a less than desirable postion regarding the use of his land.

    Thanks for the thoughtful information, and no matter what, I think all of us will be watching this with a lot of interest!
     
  8. FT

    FT Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,264
    Likes Received:
    110
    Location:
    Burlington, WA
    James,

    I wish to express my thanks to you and the rest of the folks who have posted on this topic for allowing it to be a very good, lively, informative discussion that remained respectful at all times to varying points of views. This is an example of how all disagreements could be discussed in a respectfull, informative, and genteel manner. It has been a pleasure to have participated in it.
     
  9. speyfisher

    speyfisher Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    135
    Location:
    State of Jefferson U.S.A.
    Sisu has it nailed

    Front page news: "Disgraced congressman gets eight years behind bars." Former Rep Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who collectected $2.4 million in bribes,,,,,

    We need to put more of these Bastards behind bars!:mad:
     
  10. riverrun

    riverrun Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    FT, I think you have a pretty good grasp of our unfortunate situation. You are right on.

    The saga continues. I am progressing with the permit process- albeit slowly. Had the property corners surveyed this past week. Today I finally walked the perimeter knowing where I was! The property has so many awesome building sites and perspectives. Too bad I have to make a snap decision on one or risk losing them all. So much for the plan of getting to know the property for a couple of years before chosing our home's location. Feeling the pressure to move quickly has heightened my resolve to put up the best fight against the rezoning that I can. It occurred to me on the drive home tonight that I need to check to see if Industrial Forest zoning will also limit my wife's ability to pasture horses on the property. Will check tomorrow when I am not so tired.

    Yesterday and today were beautiful days to be up there. Baker, Sauk and the Cascades were crisp and beautiful in the clean spring air. Rivers were low, but had just the color I like. Spent an hour last night and an hour this morning fishing the Skagit, but no pulls for me. Unfortunately, had to focus on the property, not the river. Can we all agree that keeping one off the river so they can fight for their property rights is a taking?

    Riverrun
     
  11. Ned Wright

    Ned Wright New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Messages:
    283
    Media:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tenino, WA
    Riverrun,

    I imagine this has been difficult for you. I too dream of someday getting to walk property and pick out a homesite. Must be frustrating to speed through the process. But like I said before...this zoneing stuff may keep the lights out of your stars and the bulldozers from beside your property line.

    One other thing to remember. This will likely keep the taxman at bay. I had a friend in TX that was pushed off her 20 acre property by a greedy tax assessor who wanted more revenue for the county. He tresspassed on her land and didn't give a shite that she had endangered Golden-cheeked Warblers nesting on the property. The land had to be developed and he taxed her till she couldn't afford it any longer. Her only option would have been to stock the land with cattle and graze the hell out of it.

    Best of luck,
    Ned
     

Share This Page