Big Surprise...
An unsurprising rip on property rights in the Seattle Times today. Basically, Greg Smith and Nina Carter say that Washington shouldn't pass an initiative similar to Oregon's Measure 37. Smith and Carter make it sound like it threw growth regulations out the window.
This is not the case. Measure 37 allows that if the land use regulation was not in effect when the current owner's family purchased the property, the owner should be compensated at fair market value or should not be subject to the regulation. So, since my parents bought their ranch in 1992, and my grandmother owned it since 1989, the property is only subject to land use regulations of 1989. Any regulations since then do not apply. For instance, if my parents wanted to build a megamall on their ranch and it was legal in 1989 but not now, then they could build their mall. However, if it was not allowed in 1989, they cannot seek compensation.
Smith and Carter say,
Funny coming from Mr. Smith. You see, Mr. Smith is a developer. But also one that feels that he has the power to tell other property owners what to do. Mr. Smith is an avid member of Seattle Vision whose 'vision' of Seattle includes
I'm quite curious what Mr. Smith would say if a government body came to Seattle and made it impossible to build new buildings in downtown. Would Mr. Smith feel that the use of HIS property is "unfairly restricted"? What if a government body came to Seattle and said that it was no longer legal to sell his million dollar condos? Would he then become a property rights advocate?
The Op/Ed continues on, saying
My favorite piece of the article states
It's great to see that Smith and Carter are qualified to determine everyone's quality of life.
This is not the case. Measure 37 allows that if the land use regulation was not in effect when the current owner's family purchased the property, the owner should be compensated at fair market value or should not be subject to the regulation. So, since my parents bought their ranch in 1992, and my grandmother owned it since 1989, the property is only subject to land use regulations of 1989. Any regulations since then do not apply. For instance, if my parents wanted to build a megamall on their ranch and it was legal in 1989 but not now, then they could build their mall. However, if it was not allowed in 1989, they cannot seek compensation.
Smith and Carter say,
Special interests...and developers are trying to exploit the concerns of a few landowners who believe that the use of their property is unfairly restricted. The developers are trying to sell us something other than the truth.
Funny coming from Mr. Smith. You see, Mr. Smith is a developer. But also one that feels that he has the power to tell other property owners what to do. Mr. Smith is an avid member of Seattle Vision whose 'vision' of Seattle includes
Planning without constraint of existing property ownership.So, basically Mr. Smith and other major property owners in the city of Seattle want to be able to tell all the 'minor' property owners what will be done with their land.
I'm quite curious what Mr. Smith would say if a government body came to Seattle and made it impossible to build new buildings in downtown. Would Mr. Smith feel that the use of HIS property is "unfairly restricted"? What if a government body came to Seattle and said that it was no longer legal to sell his million dollar condos? Would he then become a property rights advocate?
The Op/Ed continues on, saying
Washingtonians...have a history of opposing such efforts.Ladies and gentlemen, that is the purpose of an initiative.
Before these special interests run an initiative like Measure 37 in Washington, they would do well to consider what the people of Washington think.
My favorite piece of the article states
Washingtonians cherish...the right to protect our quality of life from the actions of others...
It's great to see that Smith and Carter are qualified to determine everyone's quality of life.
posted by Charlie Brown at 13.5.05
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home