Initiative 933: Don't trash Washington

Spring of 2007. As you pause over your second cup of coffee, you look out the kitchen window to notice that a crew is unloading a bulldozer on the lot next door. You spot a big, plywood real-estate sign going up, announcing the construction of a new strip mall.

Investigating, you learn that your neighbor's property has been sold to a speculator who plans to raze the home, cut down every mature tree on the lot, fill in the small creek that crosses the back yard, and pave a parking lot right up to your property line.

"Hold on," you say to the crew foreman. "This property was rezoned from commercial to residential 10 years ago, and that house was designated as a historic landmark five years ago. I was told that nobody can clear-cut a site and fill the creek. I've seen spawning salmon swim up through here. Who gave you permission to do this?"

The foreman shrugs and says matter-of-factly, "Well, sir, you did. Or I should say the voters did in November of 2006, when they passed that new property-rights law, Initiative 933. That's when all those rules went out the window."

"But, when I bought my house," you say, "I counted on those rules to protect my investment." The bulldozer roars to life, drowning out your final question, "What about my rights?"

Fortunately, you can still help avert this nightmare scenario and protect your home's value on Election Day with a "no" vote on I-933. Contrary to the rhetoric of initiative sponsors, the property value of your home would actually be threatened, not protected, by this misguided, poorly written and overreaching initiative. That's because of the uncertainty and turmoil I-933 would inject into the residential real-estate market. To make matters worse, every taxpaying household in Washington could be saddled with a tab of $3,000 or more.

What would the devils in the details of I-933 actually do, who is pushing it, and who is paying for their campaign? A detailed analysis of I-933 and its consequences for taxpayers and Washington's quality of life can be accessed online at www.washington-apa.org/analysis_I-933.shtml

The initiative's sponsors claim that what they are after is fairness. But what's fair about a sweeping rollback of our state's land-use protections — the standards that keep our drinking water clean, maintain the livability of growing cities and towns, safeguard neighborhoods from property-devaluing nuisances, protect farms, forests and green spaces from encroaching development, and safeguard habitat for shellfish, orca and salmon?

Our laws now require land-use decisions to be made out in the open, through a democratic process that considers and protects everyone's property rights, not just a select few. What's fair about an I-933 system that would hide development decisions from public view and grant maximum financial profit to certain property owners, neighbors be damned?

The core of I-933 is a simple and clever legal scheme called "pay or waive." Such schemes dramatically lower the threshold for when compensation must be paid for restrictions or limitations on property use and value — regardless of how small the limitation or how important the public protection served by the restriction.

When an owner claims that a regulation restricts or limits the value or use of property, I-933 would compel the community to choose between paying taxpayer dollars to enforce the law or else waiving those requirements.

Although the language of I-933 states that the "government shall pay," in reality this means "taxpayers shall pay." This means you. I-933's "pay or waive" law would be very expensive for you.

How expensive? Because I-933 is retroactive at least to 1996, the Association of Washington Cities estimates that I-933 payouts would cost taxpayers a staggering $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion. This works out to between $2,400 and $3,000 per household. That doesn't even count future years or the cost of the added bureaucracy needed to administer I-933.

Negative consequences of I-933 would be swift and dramatic. Sensible local protections to limit building heights, reduce traffic congestion and preserve open space would be attacked. I-933 loopholes would open up quiet residential neighborhoods to nuisance uses. The street where you live could become littered with junk cars in front yards, commercial auto-repair shops in home garages, a firing range next door or a gravel pit across the street.

Washington's landmark fish-and-forest law and even the health of Puget Sound itself would be threatened by irresponsible claims under I-933. Our ability to protect the landscape from oversized signs and billboards would be crippled. Main Streets of our towns could come to resemble the Las Vegas Strip, and views of the Cascades and Puget Sound could be blighted by monstrous billboards.

In Oregon, 22 months after its voters passed their version of I-933, the "Measure 37" chickens are coming home to roost. More than 2,000 claims have been filed so far. One claim for $205 million demands either payment or waiver to allow drilling, mining and vacation-home development in the Newberry National Monument near Bend. At this point, even some ardent Measure 37 advocates have come to regret their votes.

Tom McCready, a farmer from Sherwood, southwest of Portland, is one such victim of the "pay or waive" scheme. He told The Oregonian, "I saw the ads with that old lady and her farm [a feisty widowed grandmother who became the poster child for Measure 37] and didn't really know a lot of other things it would do."

To his horror, one of the things it did was to prompt McCready's immediate neighbor to file a claim for $8 million against the county because current regulations forbid the construction of a suburban subdivision in an agricultural zone. If the county waives the regulation, McCready fears he will not be able to continue to farm next to a new housing development. Of his vote for Measure 37, he said, "I feel like a stupid fool."

Voters should also not be fooled by shameless and hollow rhetoric about how I-933 is supposed to save us from "eminent domain." Eminent domain is the power of government to condemn private land for public purposes, paying the owner fair market value for the property. Last summer's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London alarmed many people because it arguably broadened the definition of "public use."

Despite their rhetoric, the backers of I-933 must admit that their initiative would make absolutely no change to our state's laws on eminent domain. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Voters should see through their cry of Kelo for the cynical and misleading campaign ploy it is.

So, who are these guys anyway? I-933's chief backers are the Washington Farm Bureau and the Building Industry Association of Washington. Their last attempt to impose a "pay or waive" scheme on our state was in 1995, when Washington voters rejected it by 60 percent to 40 percent.

A disturbing new wrinkle this year is that the I-933 signature-gathering campaign was largely financed by an out-of-state sugar daddy — New York real-estate developer Howard Rich, who is channeling millions to Western states to push extreme property-rights laws like I-933.

Despite its name, the Farm Bureau does not speak for all farmers. Hundreds of small family farmers and farming organizations from across the state oppose I-933, including the Western Washington Agricultural Association, the United Farmworkers, Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland, and Woodward Canyon Wineries of Walla Walla.

I-933's endless lawsuits would create a huge legal mess in the courts and a chaotic business climate. That's why the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce urges a "no" vote on I-933. Who else has joined the coalition against I-933? The League of Women Voters, the Nature Conservancy, the Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County, and the Washington State Council of Firefighters, to name just a few. The complete list of more than 100 organizations is listed on the Web site of the Citizens for Community Protection (www.noon933.org).

Will Washington voters be taken in by the I-933 scam, or will we learn from victims of Oregon's extreme property law? We need to send a strong message that we won't tolerate, much less pay for, irresponsible development. Washington's quality of life is not up for ransom. Don't trash Washington. Vote "no" on I-933.

Joseph W. Tovar of Edmonds is a city planner who has worked in the public, private and academic sectors during his 30-year career. He is president-elect of the Washington Chapter of the American Planning Association and serves on the steering committee of the No on 933 campaign. E-mail: jwtovar@hotmail.com