I have heard the KCDNR state that 50% of KC is in government ownership and they have desires on another 115,000 acres in the upcoming fiscal year (KC rural townhall meeting, Carnation , WA). This does not include the amount of property whose use was taken by regulation (CAO).
How much is enough in Government control? When only the largest developers can afford to pay for the fees and studies required to develop land in the county, what are the options for a small land owner? Sell to the large developers or be extorted into compliance through the county via (voluntary) conservation easements and TDR's. Government has been clever in this regard, chosing not to completely take the use of the individuals land, but restrict it to the point of having neglible value in the new highly regulated environment. Perhaps the best solution is to vote for I-933 and let the courts sort it out.

I find it fascinating that nearly every public discussion I see or hear on I-933 concentrates around the "cost" to taxpayers, rather than on the primary substance of the Intitiative . . . all those provisions instructing government that they have to clearly demonstrate a real need for and valid interest in regulations that restrict the use of private property. Nor do we normally hear very much about the requirement for government to determine whether there are measures that are less restrictive on the use of private property, but will still meet the goals of the proposed regulation. Nothing about making use of the option to develop voluntary programs or engage in cooperative conservation, either.

All of these points come before that last resort, choosing between paying compensation to the property owner or changing the regulation so that the property owner can use the property as he or she would like to.

When it comes to the "cost to the taxpayer" portion of the argument, we're not hearing the entire story, either.

From what I've seen in the various cost estimates, I can only conclude that nearly all of the quoted amounts were reached by asking jurisdictions how much it would cost if they had to compensate for all of their actions from 1996 through 2006 leading to the restriction of use of private property. In other words, nearly all of the stated compensation cost turns out to be the cost that has already been placed on the shoulders of the individual landowners in the state of Washington over the course of the last ten years. Nearly half of that cost appears to have been borne by landowners INSIDE the urban growth boundaries.

What makes us think that our municipal, county, and state governments intend to stop there?

What I-933 will do, if passed, is to require government at all levels to fully justify the need for additional regulations, to tell Washington's citizens how much such regulation will cost them, and try to meet the goals of the regulation through voluntary and cooperative efforts before going to the regulatory action.

What's wrong with that?

I think I-933 is fair and I feel it needs to pass. If the government takes peoples rights to their land the government needs to compensate those people for the confiscation of property. Under the current King county regulations, people cannot use up to 65% of their property if it is not already cleared.

The current King County CAO was passed at the end of 2004 to clean up the water - but even before the Democrats on the King County council voted it in, a report was in the hands of the county saying that the rural water quality was already improving. But Ron Sims and the county did not release those findings until after the CAO was passed. I wonder why?

Ron Sims in a debate with David Irons prior to the last election said that the 65% restriction only affected property with wetlands and streams. Not true Mr. Sims - it affects all properties - and you either don't know what is in the CAO or you were lying.

This is a current government that will say and do whatever it takes - even take away peoples rights to their property without hesitation for no just reason. This is suppose to be America the land of the free, but the current regulations punish the rural owners for having property. I fully support I-933 and I encourage everyone else to do the same by voting 'YES' on I-933. This is a fair initiative and it should be passed.

Thanks for your program on I-933, Mr. Mak. I was surprised there was no reference to any legal arguments underlying the property rights movement, such as the takings provision in the U.S. constitution. Also, the state legislature seems to rather regularly ignore the will of the people whenever a troublesome initiative is more than two years old. Did you interview many of our state legislators for their intentions after two years should I-933 pass?

Cameron,

You are correct. King County has a goal of having under government control 75% of the land in the county. They want to micromanage every piece of property in the region.

What people need to understand is that I-933 is not about growth, we are going to have growth no matter what. It is not about protecting the environment because we have strong environmental laws that will remain in effect. What it is about is WHO is going to control and develop the land. Look at the donors to the two campaigns and you see that the farmers, ranchers, and those that want to keep control of their property are in favor, big money developers, their architects, lawyers, and those that profit from the the government taking your land and giving it to them to develop are against this.

Norman,

The campaign against is using the standard scare tactic called "FUD". Generate "Fear, Uncertianty, and Doubt" into the voters mind and they will vote against nearly anything even if it is in their best interest to vote for it.

Upfront exposed this without even realizing it. Here they claim this measure would cost taxpayers Billions of dollars but the governments in Oregon admitted they have not paid out a single dollar.

Sure they can point to a small number of abuses, those will exist no matter what, but they don't tell the whole story. The gravel pit the one lady complained about was going to be located somewhere because you need gravel if you are going to build. The fact is was near her home had nothing to do with the new law, it had to do with demand, and probably would have ended up there even without the law.

Is it really in the best interest of the public to fine its citizens $5,000-$15,000 per tree if you cut down one tree on your property?

If you are prostituting yourself, or tresspassing and destroying your neighbor's property is punishable by a fine of 'up to $1,000. But if you cut down your tree next to your home that is rotting your roof and dropping branches on your car, you might have to sell your house to pay the fine.

933 is not just about the farmer who is no longer able to use 65% of her land or the homeowner who wants to build a second home on his property for his children. No, this is about your ability to use your land. This is about the most basic of American civil liberties-the right to own and use your property.

Without private ownership and use of private property, we have no rights. America was founded upon the principles of life, liberty and property.

The government paper-pushers can decide on a whim if your land will be left for you to use or if they want to take it for a park or for open space buffers or to save the spotted brown slug... If a city wants your land for a road, they must condemn it and pay you for that portion. If they want a buffer or a wildlife preserve over the back 50 feet of your land, they just declare it and you no longer can use it--but you paid for it, have used it and will continue to pay taxes on it!! And if you vote 'no' on 933, they will steal even more land with impunity.

The real questions of 933 are:
Should government be able to take your property without paying for it?
Is stealing ok if it is the government doing it?
Is stealing from your neighbor ok because they aren't stealing from you today?
Don't worry, once they are done with 'us' they will come for you.

933 reiterates RCW 82.02.020, Wshington's statutory due process clause, the US Constitution, the Washington State Constitution and every city and county charter, the GMA, the ESA and every other law that states the governments can not take private land for public or private use without paying for it FIRST.

THIS TIME WE MEAN IT!!