darin
07-08-2008, 08:48 AM
I'm very shocked this happened in Washington State.
A few years ago king county inacted very restrictive laws for property owners. The law regulated how much land an owner could clear. For instance, if I bought a 5 acre plot of weeds and brambles, I could only clear 35% of the land - everything else had to remain as it was when I purchased the land. Of course I was absolutely TAXED on all 5 acres, even though I couldn't USE the land. Want horses? Forget it. Want walking trails? No dice. In fact, the laws were so tight, one woman was cited for removing garbage which had been dropped into a stream on her property. Yup. She cleaned up a stream and was cited for it.
One of the most far-reaching laws of its kind, the ordinance prohibits landowners from removing vegetation from more than half of a property larger than 1-¼ acres or more than 35 percent of a property of five acres or more.
The Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) and five landowners sued in 2005 to overturn the law, which was adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council on a 7-6 vote along party lines.
"I am a happy man today," said Steve Hammond, who voted against the ordinance as a Republican council member and is now president of CAPR. "The civil rights of the rural folks have been upheld. I think there are a lot of problems with the critical-areas package of ordinances, but the most egregious problem was addressed today by the court."
Rodney McFarland, who was CAPR president when the suit was filed, said the law, a "one-size-fits-all, 50 to 65 percent taking, was a very radical move by the county to tie up a huge swath of private property."
Kathy Fletcher, executive director of People for Puget Sound, was among environmentalists dismayed by the court's decision.
"The ordinance was critical to the county's ability to maintain healthy watersheds and that — the stormwater issue — is one of the key issues for the health of Puget Sound as well," she said. "This is a ruling that, if it's upheld, is going to make it very much more challenging to restore the health of Puget Sound."
The law was written after county biologists compiled scientific studies, some of which said the health of streams seriously deteriorates when 30 percent of a watershed's forest cover is removed.
Appeals Court Judge Ronald Cox, in an opinion endorsed by colleagues Susan Agid and Anne Ellington, wrote that state law restricting taxes on development prohibits the county from limiting development without showing the effects of the specific proposal.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008038535_criticalareas08m0.html
A few years ago king county inacted very restrictive laws for property owners. The law regulated how much land an owner could clear. For instance, if I bought a 5 acre plot of weeds and brambles, I could only clear 35% of the land - everything else had to remain as it was when I purchased the land. Of course I was absolutely TAXED on all 5 acres, even though I couldn't USE the land. Want horses? Forget it. Want walking trails? No dice. In fact, the laws were so tight, one woman was cited for removing garbage which had been dropped into a stream on her property. Yup. She cleaned up a stream and was cited for it.
One of the most far-reaching laws of its kind, the ordinance prohibits landowners from removing vegetation from more than half of a property larger than 1-¼ acres or more than 35 percent of a property of five acres or more.
The Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) and five landowners sued in 2005 to overturn the law, which was adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council on a 7-6 vote along party lines.
"I am a happy man today," said Steve Hammond, who voted against the ordinance as a Republican council member and is now president of CAPR. "The civil rights of the rural folks have been upheld. I think there are a lot of problems with the critical-areas package of ordinances, but the most egregious problem was addressed today by the court."
Rodney McFarland, who was CAPR president when the suit was filed, said the law, a "one-size-fits-all, 50 to 65 percent taking, was a very radical move by the county to tie up a huge swath of private property."
Kathy Fletcher, executive director of People for Puget Sound, was among environmentalists dismayed by the court's decision.
"The ordinance was critical to the county's ability to maintain healthy watersheds and that — the stormwater issue — is one of the key issues for the health of Puget Sound as well," she said. "This is a ruling that, if it's upheld, is going to make it very much more challenging to restore the health of Puget Sound."
The law was written after county biologists compiled scientific studies, some of which said the health of streams seriously deteriorates when 30 percent of a watershed's forest cover is removed.
Appeals Court Judge Ronald Cox, in an opinion endorsed by colleagues Susan Agid and Anne Ellington, wrote that state law restricting taxes on development prohibits the county from limiting development without showing the effects of the specific proposal.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008038535_criticalareas08m0.html