TheAgitator.com
Washington Land Grab
Thursday, July 1st, 2004Residents of King County, Wash., will only be able to build on 10 percent of their land, according to a new law being considered by the county government, which, if enacted, will be the most restrictive land use law in the nation.Known as the 65-10 Rule, it calls for landowners to set aside 65 percent of their property and keep it in its natural, vegetative state. According to the rule, nothing can be built on this land, and if a tree is cut down, for example, it must be replanted. Building anything is out of the question…
“We’re trying to keep the rural area a place that isn’t just McMansions and ball courts, but instead has those natural processes,” said Tim Trohimovich of the group 1000 Friends of Washington, which aims to promote healthy communities and cities while protecting farmland and forests.
That’s an awfully generous portrayal of what Trohimovich’s group does.
“1000 Friends of Washington, which aims to promote healthy communities and cities while protecting farmland and forests.”
Huh? How can you “promote” a city if you can’t build anything? What kind of population will it have (i.e., how many, and what kind of, people will be willing to risk living there, giving the “community” right to control your property — and controlling your property means controlling you).
But of course that’s the idea. Radical environmentalists and preservationists are not motivated by love of the forest/desert/coastline/swamp/mudpit/etc. They are motivated by hatred of people.
The only thing more dangerous than a do-gooder with a cause is a do-gooder with a cause and a government grant. If this plan is approved by a governmental authority it is tantamount to deprivation of property without due process. Somebody should sue these bastards and get in their pockets. Money is the only thing people like this understand. Keep them broke and in court so they can no longer afford their Beirkenstocks, Yoplait, and double decaf lattes and they might actually get a clue.
How can you “promote” a city if you can’t build anything?
Don’t try to argue logic with these socialist bastards. It’s like the National Trust commercials that ask “when your kids ask where you got married, will you have to tell them, ‘over there, by the unleaded?’”. Um, yes, and so what if you do? Should we steal money from everybody in order to save some run-down “landmark”? If “the people” really cared about that landmark, then they’d fix it up and save it themselves through philanthropy. The national trust is nothing but forced philanthropy (yes, I know, that’s a big ol oxymoron).
It’s the simple idea that these people know better than everyone else does. That their ideals are more important than everyone else’s. It’s arrogance, plain and simple, and it’s sickening to watch. It’s like my dad whining about Walmart coming into his town. Just because HE doesn’t like Walmart doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be able to build a store there. It’s not HIS property. And if the town, as a whole, doesn’t like Walmart, then there’s a very simple solution: don’t shop there; it’s called voting with your dollars. And if his town doesn’t shop there, then it will go out of business. But if it does do alot of business, then that is simply an indication that the town does want it there. How simple is that?
It’s just arrogance.
Evan you really nailed it. But then arrogance is at the root of most liberal agendas. They always know better than any other demographic. I know this because they constantly say so. It never ceases to amaze me that Liberals spend so much time and energy preaching tolerance of other people’s beliefs and opinions, and then are so radically intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their stance.
Bruce,
That’s primarily where my disillusionment with liberals came from. They’ll preach “tolerance”, but. in fact, it’s only a broader, shifting version of the strict moral intolerance on the right. For example, liberals would probably spend their day out in the street fighting for gays to have the right to marry, but if you asked them about polygamy, they would balk, and the intolerance would show through. The left and the right are all just as intolerant…though, one is (supposedly) economically liberal and the other is (supposedly)socially liberal. But both of them think they know how to run your life.
That’s why Michael Badnarik’s campaign commercial is so fucking great.
[off-topic]
Speaking of Badnarik, looking at his picture in that commercial, he looks eerily similar to our neocon pal Wolfy. Anyone else see that?
Property Rights
How would you like it if you were told by your local government that you could only develop up to 10% of any piece of property you own? Sounds kind of ridiculous right? Well they’re considering doing just that in…
I would charge the city rent on the 65% of my property that I would no longer be able to develop. Let’s see if they like the “natural, vegetative state”(1) enough to pay me to grow it.
(1) I was not referring to the officials’ mental capacities, but that fits nicely as well….
I don’t even understand what these activists are thinking with the “keep the rural area a place that isn’t just McMansions and ball courts, but instead has those natural processes” line. WHAT “natural processes”?
Beyond that for those of you not familiar with northwest geography, King County is where the Seattle metropolitan area is! Apparently, if this group gets it’s way, this is as big as Seattle will get. Screw all you suburbs too.
I really liked this line from the story, “But supporters and environmentalists say personal property rights do not trump the rights of a larger community to save the eco-system”.
What really gets me is that these same people take offense if someone calls them communist. “It’s not communist”, they reply, “that is evil, instead it is just good, socialist ideals.”
To kip and Evan…
Confucious he say:
“nothing is not the absence of something, but the complement of it”…
understand this, and you will understand how not having buildings in some places can improve a city… or take a walk in central park.
nothing is more environmentally friendly or energy efficient then large cities ala New York. This kind of rule is totally against the idea of an economy of scale and sounds like it produced sprawl. But who ever heard of an environmentalist policy being counter productive. It is the thought that counts right?
understand this, and you will understand how not having buildings in some places can improve a city… or take a walk in central park.
According to…who? It’s ALL SUBJECTIVE. That’s precisely the point, Confucious-speak notwithstanding. While YOU believe that a certain block would “improve the city” if it were turned into parkland, maybe someone else believes that it would “improve the city” if it were a bloomingdales.
So, my question is, with two different, subjective opinions, why is YOUR opinion better than THE OTHER opinion? It’s not. And his is no better than yours, for they are both opinions. This is why we have the principle of personal property rights.
And no matter what you say, there is simply no way that you can convince me that your opinion is more valid than anyone else’s. The point is, freedom. Liberty. The liberty to do as you please on your own property, so long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of other property owners.
Understand THAT, and you’ll understand why the Founders wrote the Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, etc.
nothing is more environmentally friendly or energy efficient then large cities ala New York
Um, also very true. Turning a city block into parkland doesn’t mean that those people’s housing needs will just disappear. It’s simple logic.
Seems like this should be a variant on an eminent domain case that IJ might take up. I’m sure that in a technical/legal sense, the property is still privately owned, but if the control of it is wrested from the owner in the name of some sort of public good, where does ownership really lie?
It’s not property ownership, if someone else controls 65% of it. IJ SHOULD take this up.
Sounds exactly like the agenda of the Bloomington, IN planning commission and city council.
I got involved last summer in fighting a PUD that would have trashed our community. I did this because I could – the owner of the property couldn’t do the awful things he wanted to do WITHOUT a change in the zoning. So I could fight the zoning. If the zoning were all ready for him though, I wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on and I wouldn’t have participated with my socialist neighborhood association the way I did. I guess I got lucky.
I haven’t participated in anything they’ve tried to do since, because it’s a bunch of nannyist, liberal crap that infringes on business and transportation.
Not that I like to see this sort of thing happening anywhere. . . but it makes me feel better knowing folks like me aren’t alone :)
Wade put it so nicely:
(puts on green hat)…..
…it’s not a question of loving the environment more than people, it’s more a realisation that our fates are inextricably though assymmetrically bound (we need our planet more than it “needs” us”)…
Posted by: wade on June 29, 2004 06:03 AM
No one gave you the right to ruin an ecosystem which the rest of us are inextricably linked to.
Fine then, I’m going to cut down all the trees on my land, pave it all over and send the stormwater your way.
Capice?
Um, “Actually”, please, tell me, who determines what exactly “ruins” an ecosystem? At what point is it ruined? My libertarian position on the environment is one that is grounded in basic personal property laws, wherein, you don’t do anything that harms another’s private property.
As for ‘nobody giving you the right to ruin an ecosystem’, well, we could go deep into the philosophical depths of human ownership of land, but I’d rather not, at least, not right now. I would rather stay within the legal constructs of the Constitutional Republic, which was built on NEGATIVE rights, not positive ones. IOW, it’s not as if the government retains all rights, and doles them out as it sees fit. No, instead, the Constitution determined which rights the government was bound to protect. Thus, we were afforded inalienable rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Later, the Bill of Rights spells out other specific rights which we are inextricably endowed, and which the government may not abridge. It was more a way to protect US from the GOVERNMENT, and from each other, and from outside aggression.
However, by saying that “you have no right to develop your own land”, you are effectively abrogating the idea of negative rights, and installing the idea of positive rights; in simpler terms, you are saying that the government, or, the “majority”, is the keeper of all rights, and shall dole them out as it sees fit. This is a slap in the face to the Constitution of the United States, and is precisely what the Founding Fathers sought to prevent.
As I said, I support environmental laws that conform to the unprovoked harm principles of private property law. If I pour toxic sludge in my stream and it flows into your proerty and hurts it, then I am liable. I shall be taken to court for said offenses and be at the mercy of a jury of my peers.
However, laws such as this, which are not reacting to any actual destructive or harmful action, but instead, are a result of the aesthetic, emotional and reminiscing whims of the majority (or, even, the active majority who has the backing of socialist government officials). If I build a huge development on my property that fouls up my neighbor’s stormwater systems, then yes, I should be liable for the damage that I cause. But for the state to seize control over 65% of my private property in the name of some sort of subjective “common good” is against what the republic is built on: property rights. If you can prove that it is “ruining an ecosystem”, and thus, bringing harm to your property, when I develop 50% of my land, then you may personally sue for damages in a court of law. But land development is not inherently harmful to people, therefore, it should not be inherently illegal. You have no government-protected right to look at a hillside and see no houses, unless it is your property. And the measurement of “harm” should be decided by the courts, not by environmental extremists who wish to control the actions of everyone around them, because “they know best”.
Socialist white men like to call selves stewards of scared land to which are asymmetrically bound. Even we of the Human Beings use more than 10% of hemp plant to wipe our asses. Stop use of big words to counter small mind and get real job. Like make and sell whiskey.
Wade writes:
“take a walk in central park”
The land where Central Park is located was the crappiest land on the island of Manhattan — so bad that only blacks and Irish lived there. It was BUILT, just like any other construction project — it was most certainly not “preserved” on “conserved” in any sense of the word.
And it was built because the
“enlightened” central planners, working for the “public good,” forgot to allow for appreciable park space when they implemented Manhattan’s famous “grid plan” in the first place.
And besides — King County, Washington, is hardly the island of Manhattan.
My interpretation is that so long as you do not harm another human being by your actions then you are ok. Regulations are signs design failure, they are the state stepping into commerce and saying, you have no right to harm another person or his property (actually, the property owns us but as you said, let’s not go there). (-:
ASTM and ASHRAE put out basics and fundamentals so that people don’t build shit that harms them or others. There are building codes for what you can safely build and design so that you don’t do anything to hurt yourself or another human being. I think there should be codes so that you don’t wind up hurting another human being or his/her property through our biospherical media, the environment. Blunt force 65-10 regulations like this one? Maybe a little extreme. Requiring LEED consultation seems a better solution, a happy medium even.
On the other hand, there are codes and regulations for density, setbacks, etc, that are ludicrous! That lead to the sprawl and quite honestly degradation of farm and wild land.
What about brownfield development?
All Manhattan is, is filled in wetland.
A venturesome minority will always be eager to set off in their own, and no obstacles should be placed in their path; let time take risks, for Godsake, let them get lost, sunburnt, stranded, drowned, eaten by bears, buried alive under avalanches–that is the tight and privilege of any free American.
I assume that the “1000 Friends of Washington” will each be knocking down 65% of everything built on their own land first, right? If, after doing that, they still think there’s not enough empty space, then we can talk.
I get the feeling that this was done specifically to prevent a particular development project or kind of development project (mall or big-box store development), but is worded is such a way that it covers pretty much everyone.
They might have been thinking of developers who want to buy hundreds of acres and pave it all, but unthinkingly written a law that covers Bob’s quarter acre.
It just kinda has that smell about it. The numbers 65 and 10 involved probably resemble numbers involved in a particular development project.
It’s kind of the inverse of when a law is passed that covers only “companies incorporated on, say, March 5th, 1990, operating in the automotive industry” in order to create a law that applies to one particular business, despite rules against doing exactly that.
I think the solution is simple… if you own a 90×90 plot of land, simply pave a 1×1 square of asphalt every 3-4 feet in a checkboard pattern.
Love to see the enviro’s faces if a few land owners did this. ;)
Sorry for the quick doublepost, but something I’m missing.
You can only develop 10% of the land.
You must leave 65% in the natural state.
What of the other 25%?
Jon H writes:
“I get the feeling that this was done specifically to prevent a particular development project or kind of development project (mall or big-box store development), but is worded is such a way that it covers pretty much everyone.”
Unfortunately no — check their site. They’re pretty ecumenical in their advocacy (and sociopathy) — here’s just one sample:
“1000 Friends of Washington has changed the shape of land use across the state. We have successfully challenged all (SIC!!!) of Snohomish County’s illegal attempts to expand urban growth boundaries and redesignate hundreds of acres of rural and agricultural lands for commercial and residential development. We have reversed every (SIC!!!) major land use decision the Snohomish County Council has made in the last three years.”
Gives new meaning to the term “scorched earth policy.”
Thorn, apparently these people did not do well in math. I guess whatever you say about them, you cannot accuse them of being gifted.
Does this have any chance of passing? The article says the people who own the land are pissed (obviously) but doesn’t say anything about the rest of King County. I have trouble believing anybody other than 1000 Friends takes it seriously, other than to think it’s scary.
You might want to check into how the government owns all land, and no one has the ability to own property, in the form of land, apart from the government. This has been enacted by state governments, but of course the Feds can do whatever they want as well.
Badnarik’s Constitutional Class videos, mostly in the 1st one, go into how gubmint gets away with this, and true property ownership under ALLODIAL TITLE, and other such non-land property problems.
He’s a very smart guy… I’d reccomend voting for him for President.
Hey, maybe I’m ignorant, No really I AM. But, what is “IJ”? Institute for Justice?
Sounds like any weathly community here in California. Atherton and Woodside come to mind. My rich friends who have tried to build in those locations have wonderfull stories to tell of the permiting process.
Natural processes in people’s fenced in backyards? You’d need to own an aweful lot of land to have a working eco-system in your backyard – unless they are thinking just of squirrels and sparrows, neither of which are in particularly short supply. The sad part is if passed, this law would deter people from planting more trees on their property.
Nothing here that Ayn Rand did not predict (and that John Galt did not say) more than 50 years ago.
Read Atlas Shrugged if you have not already.
If you have already read it, read it again.