KING COUNTY, Wash. — Residents 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.
Most of the residents who will be directly affected by the regulations — those who own property in the rural areas of the country — are fuming. They see the new regulations as a land grab and a violation of their property rights.
"My take is it's stealing — out and out stealing," said county resident Marshall Brenden. "They're taking 65 percent of your land that you fought for years to pay for, paid mortgages on and now you can't use it."
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Goose From Canada, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 1840 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1820 times:
A proposed law for King County, Washington would require that landowners set aside 65% of their property and keep it in its natural, vegetative state.
Sounds a little socialist to me. Property is yours to use as you see fit - as long as you obey the local zoning laws in place when you purchase it. If you don't agree with the laws in place when you are looking to purchase a certain piece of property, then you don't purchase it and look elsewhere; or, if you know you can have the zoning bylaws changed, you set aside the money to have it changed after you purchase it.
I agree that it's wrong to change the law governing property use mid-stream. Perhaps it could be given a "grandfather clause" exempting people who own property as of the day before the date when the law is enacted; any future owners (save for those who take ownership of the property via inheritance) would have to obey the new law.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1798 times:
I think it's a great idea. Just think how nice it will look with all those pretty trees...! Who wants nasty old buildings with nasty old businesses in them, and all thos nasty people working there, making all that nasty old tax money?
Oh, wait a minute, this must be some kind of mistake! We do!