Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

The Seattle Times

Editorials / Opinion


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Originally published Friday, July 11, 2008 at 12:00 AM

E-mail article     Print view

Editorial

The land clash: Can we preserve the green?

A state appeals court's rejection of King County rural-land restrictions poses serious questions about how the county can preserve the environment...

A state appeals court's rejection of King County rural-land restrictions poses serious questions about how the county can preserve the environment.

The three-judge Court of Appeals panel ruled that land-clearing limits are an illegal form of in-kind tax, or fee, on development. Property owners in rural King County who want to develop their land are currently required to retain a certain amount of the trees and other native vegetation on their property.

King County Executive Ron Sims is right to seek answers from the Washington Supreme Court.

The appeals court discarded just one provision of the county's Clearing and Grading Code, but it is a very important one, a useful tool in helping maintain clean streams and wildlife habitat.

The limits on clearing and grading in forested areas are bolstered by convincing environmental science. Flexibility injected into the code struck a balance between environmental stewardship and the needs of rural property owners.

Moreover, the court's ruling could set an unhealthy precedent, inviting lawsuits from property owners unhappy with other zoning regulations, from setbacks to easements.

The county's oversight of land use is appropriate. Zoning mechanisms such as front- and side-yard setbacks and property easements are other tools in the land-use arsenal. The Court of Appeals doesn't cast doubt on these things. Nor do the judges refute the scientific journals and other scholarly evidence pointing to a harmful cause-and-effect of development.

The task for Sims is to marry the county's environmental objectives with the law. Government lawyers argued that the state Growth Management Act requires some limitations on rural land use.

"If the state Legislature had intended such a reading when it passed the GMA, it would have said so. It did not," retorted the court.

Onward to the high court, where it is hoped justices will agree that the county has the right to protect our lakes, streams and drinking water from excessive forest destruction.

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

Leonard Pitts Jr. / Syndicated columnist: America's paradox: black men fighting for ideals that exclude them

Lift the levy lid for King County libraries

Leonard Pitts Jr. / Syndicated columnist: President Obama's appeal for civility: The country should come first

Advertising

Video

Marketplace

Open Houses

Find this weekend's open house listings.
Or search by location:

nwautos

Fatal crashes are down in Washington, and a national used-car database goes onlinenew
Associated Press Study: Fatal crashes down in Washington Last year Washington's roads were the scene of the fewest fatal crashes since 1955. According...
Post a comment

 
Most read
Most commented
Most e-mailed
 
 

Most viewed imagesMore

Advertising