I-933 finds support lukewarm

Eleven years ago Washington's homebuilders, real-estate agents and big timber companies teamed up with the state Farm Bureau to supply most of the money and muscle behind a property-rights initiative that voters ultimately rejected.

A similar measure, Initiative 933, has qualified for the November ballot. This time, though, the Farm Bureau is pretty much running the show alone.

Its powerful allies from 1995 either are sitting on the fence, decided to remain neutral or have embraced Initiative 933 only half-heartedly.

The state's leading developers are providing scant backing for a measure opponents label a "developers' initiative."

They offer varying explanations.

The Building Industry Association of Washington says it has higher priorities this year.

The Washington Association of Realtors says its members are deeply divided on I-933.

Information

Pro Initiative 933: Property Fairness Coalition, www.propertyfairness.com

Against Initiative 933: Citizens for Community Protection, www.noon933.org

To read the text of the initiative: www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/
initiatives/text/i933.pdf

The head of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties says the initiative is poorly drafted and could create as many problems as it solves.

Western Washington University political scientist Todd Donovan says those organizations' minimal involvement in the I-933 campaign may signal they have made their peace, to some extent, with the land-use and environmental laws that pushed them into the property-rights camp a decade ago.

"The Growth Management Act has been around a long time," Donovan says. "It's the status quo now."

Dan Wood, Farm Bureau government-affairs director and sponsor of both I-933 and the 1995 initiative, acknowledges he could use more support this time from his old allies. But they often have the resources to cope with the regulations the initiative targets, he said: "It's the moms and pops that don't."

"Sometimes big government and big corporations are hard to distinguish, ... " Wood said. "Courage for standing up to big government and doing the right thing is in short supply in Olympia and the state."

Aaron Toso, spokesman for the anti-933 campaign, said many in the building and real-estate industries share opponents' concerns that the initiative would create regulatory chaos: "They see this is going to be costly and bring instability to the real-estate market."

Reminiscent of R-48

Initiative 933 was inspired by a similar measure Oregon voters approved in 2004. In many instances, it would require state and local governments to compensate property owners when regulations reduce property values — or governments would have to waive those rules.

Regulations to which the initiative's pay-or-waive requirements would apply include those that:

• Require that any portion of a property remain in its natural state.

• Restrict logging.

• Prohibit any uses that would have been legal before 1996.

I-933 is reminiscent of a measure that reached the Washington ballot in 1995 as Referendum 48. It would have required government to compensate landowners for regulations imposed for "public benefit" that reduced property values.

The arguments then were much like those today. Supporters characterized Referendum 48 as a counterattack against intrusive government rules that effectively seize private property for public use in the name of environmental protection.

Opponents argued R-48 would undercut the foundations of land-use planning. They won easily at the polls.

In 1995, the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), Washington Association of Realtors and their national parent organizations were the biggest contributors to the Referendum 48 campaign, giving more than $450,000 combined.

This year? While the BIAW has endorsed Initiative 933, it has contributed just $25,000, pocket change for a group that gave more than $1 million to Republican candidates in 2004.

Tom McCabe, the organization's executive vice president, says the Farm Bureau is doing a "splendid job" with the I-933 campaign, but it shouldn't expect more support from the BIAW before November.

Other fall campaigns, including state Supreme Court and legislative races, are a higher priority, he said.

Builders are divided on the initiative, McCabe acknowledges, and the minimal financial support they have offered to I-933 reflects that. He said some builders are more comfortable now than they were 11 years ago operating under the state's 1990 Growth Management Act, which established urban growth boundaries and severely restricted development beyond them.

"Let's just say there are some builders that do very well when property values increase," McCabe said.

"People on all sides"

The Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, a BIAW affiliate that also gave generously to Referendum 48 in 1995, is neutral on I-933. Sam Anderson, the association's executive officer, said it concluded that the initiative is so poorly written it would lead to lawsuits that could paralyze local governments.

The Master Builders didn't want to oppose I-933, Anderson said, because the group supports property rights and agrees land-use regulations sometimes go too far. But "the regulatory consequences that could flow from [I-933] outweigh what little good it might do," Anderson said.

A Washington Association of Realtors task force has been weighing the organization's position on I-933 since spring. Jon Soine, a Bellingham realtor who is the panel's chairman, said a decision won't come until after the organization's fall conference in late September in Spokane.

"We've got people on all sides of the issue," he said. "We see positives and negatives."

A summary of I-933's pros and cons that the task force produced in April said the initiative would send government "a strong message protecting property rights," and allow the market to determine where and when development occurs.

But it also said I-933 could result in tax increases, incompatible development, litigation and confusion. "Homeowners' expectations regarding their neighborhood no longer predictable," the summary said.

Former donors neutral

In 1995 Simpson Timber, Plum Creek and Longview Fibre — all owners of large expanses of Washington timberland — were among the top 10 donors to Referendum 48. This time they're neutral.

Eleven years ago, emotions were running high in the timber industry over proposed regulations to set aside habitat for the Northern spotted owl, said Bill Wilkerson, executive director of the Washington Forest Protection Association, which represents large forest landowners.

Much has changed since 1995, he said: The industry has agreed to rules that limit logging along streams and elsewhere, in part because it recognized federal endangered-species regulations could trump anything the state did.

"We've come to the conclusion that we can live with the regulatory environment in which we're working now," Wilkerson said.

Eric Pryne: 206-464-2231 or epryne@seattletimes.com