EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12559 posts, RR: 64 Posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1661 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.
Does this sound like good environmental policy, or does it sound like unreasonable "hijacking" of private property by environmentalists?
Personally, I'd be incensed if anyone changed the rules on me mid-stream and told me the land I'd bought with intents of developing could no longer be used.
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
N6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1650 times:
This may be an unconstitutional taking of property by the local government. I seem to remember a similar Supreme Court case involving one of the Carolinas not too many years ago.
Goose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1640 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.
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 25 Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1633 times:
This may be an unconstitutional taking of property by the local government. I seem to remember a similar Supreme Court case involving one of the Carolinas not too many years ago.
Yep, also one out California. Both times the Supreme Court ruled that if the local government is going to force citizens to use their property in a certain manner, they have to pay the owner for it.
Rsmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 192 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1628 times:
The politicians that are running King County are not of the same cloth that John Kerry is from that they are from a place so far left that it is unreachable by air.
Politics in Washington state in general are a continous CIRCUS.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1618 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!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12559 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
