|
My Letter to the King County,
Washington, Council, and its "Critical Areas Ordinance", or
CAO, which is strangulatory zoning
July 6, 2004
By Julie Kay Smithson
Mr. Sims and All Council members:
As a national and international property rights researcher, I daily
see similar 'emergencies' such as your 'Critical Areas Ordinance/s' (CAOs).
It usually elicits a chuckle to think that otherwise reasonable
appearing people could/would seek to pull off such a scam on their own
neighborhood.
However, I can see how it came to be. Your residents have been, by and
large, 'taking a nap' while the trap sprang shut.
These cookie cutter ordinances must be a template -- one that only
needs to have the blanks filled in as to how much of the taxpayers'
property rights you intend to take this year.
Here in rural Ohio, our farmers saw not one, but TWO assessments in
one year (September and December). The first averaged a 126% increase
in farm taxes; the second went after up to 72% MORE.
This is robbery without a gun; extortion using paper and pen, nothing
more.
No matter. They're waking up now, as their county teeters on the brink
of having its middle class completely erased and nothing but the haves
and the have-nots left to fill the void.
I am reminded of the Sheriff of Nottingham riding throughout the
kingdom, collecting taxes from those taxed-to-the-hilt countrymen --
and his surprise at meeting Robin Hood and his merry band on a wooded
trail. Did you really think this would continue forever? Did you think Preston
Drew and his neighbors would keep handing you more and more until
there was nothing left? They almost did.
Al Osgood is drafting something that seeks what has always been in our
Constitution (you remember: the national one): compensation for a
taking. Bottom line, though, is that a taking in a place where so much
has already been taken, is arguably a crime.
Why not penalize those doing the taking and reward those whose
ownership and stewardship -- which includes that word DEVELOPMENT that
you, Council, seem to think is your own personal domain?
Wendy Walsh of 'Public Benefit Rating System' fame (or notoriety,
depending on whether you're the steamroller or the pavement), Klaus
Richter, Pam Bissonette and other King County Open Space
Citizens' Oversight Committee and Growth Management Committee members
may wax euphoric about 'preserving' -- but the fact is that no one has
sought to control what she/they do with their property. It's a one-way
street, and Ms. Walsh apparently thinks it runs her way.
'Preserve' is what biology students do with a jar of formaldehyde.
'Protect' and 'restore' are just stalking horses for Control, which it
is crystal-clear that you seek to exert over everyone and their
property, which means their freedom.
You are to vote NO on CAO -- also I can see why you'd think you could
get away with such an abomination in the last country you should ever
consider trying such hi jinx.
Apparently, the mind set of King County residents has been such that
they've allowed their county to don the dubious distinction as being
the most restrictive, property rights wise, in the entire state. To
that end, I can see how this 'last straw' came about.
Even now, things continue to be brought up that should never have
been put in place in ANY county in America, including, but not limited
to, a "Growth Management Act" and acquiescing to the mantra
of "150 years of environmental damage", dadada.
It was inevitable that, having had the run of the candy store
long enough, you'd come to think you owned it!
The proposed Critical Areas Ordinances seek to abort every property
rights tenet in the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United
States of America -- and do so on the backs of the property
owners of rural King County, Washington. You seek to
extort from them something that resembles a Mafia action from
past years. Is this how you want your Council to be remembered, as the
thieves of property rights? No emergency requires this legislation --
but to pass such patently illegal legislation would be to CREATE an
emergency. The fact that King County already has the strongest
restrictions on land use in the state sickens me. This tells me that
the citizenry have for far too long been of not strong enough backbone
and too strong a desire to let 'someone else' make the rules, so long
as those rules did not dabble in their comfort zone. Now this cocoon
has come back to haunt them, and you are the delivery people. Through
multiple down-zoning, a house of cards -- which will 'bring down' all
that most rural residents hold dear -- is about to implode.
I instruct you, as representatives of taxpayers in your county --
however tardy they've been on standing up to your view of 'freedom' by
strangulatory regulation and smothering restrictions -- Vote NO to all
CAO and CAO-related schemes.
Julie K. Smithson
London, Ohio
=====
The replies I've received, to date:
King County Council member Steve Hammond, on July 7:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the proposed land use changes commonly grouped together and referred to as the CAO (Critical Areas Ordinance). Due to the large number of contacts on this controversial subject, I feel it is important to share with each of you my perspective on this issue. The proposed CAO is a poorly written, troubling piece of legislation which appears to have less to do with BAS (Best Available Science) and more to do with the political goal of essentially stopping growth in the rural area. What else could explain this regulation calling for the exact opposite of what the Department of Ecology and common sense tells us, viz. buffers should be larger in urban areas where adverse environmental impacts are greatest? Public testimony, with perhaps a handful of exceptions, has been that those who live in the rural areas, where the regulations will hit hardest, oppose these ordinances. Those supporting these regulations, by and large, do not live on rural property. In essence they are calling for regulation on someone else's property. This is one more reason why rural citizens often feel disenfranchised from their own county government. Regulations are imposed on those who cannot politically defend themselves. Votes taken by urban dwelling Councilmembers represent very little political risk. Don't miss the point that I am the only Councilmember living on personally owned property in the rural area. However,
most troubling to me is that no one has satisfactorily answered my
oft-repeated question: "Who, and by what authority, is saying
that If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to contact my office. Councilmember Steve Hammond
=====
King County Council member Kathy Lambert (on July 7):
Dear Ms. Smithson, Thank
you for taking the time to communicate with me concerning the
proposed legislation from Ron Sims which would severely and
unreasonably limit the use of your property. As
you know, I am opposed to the legislation because it is not based
on sound science and it is unfair to the residents in the
rural areas. Furthermore,
there is no reason to rush this legislation so I am calling for a
stop to this politically motivated and poorly crafted program. Time
is of the essence as the Chair of the Growth Management and
Unincorporated Areas Committee tells me he intends for a vote to be
taken on this issue at the end of July.
Please
know that I am doing all that I can to serve you well, and to
protect both you and your property rights. I greatly appreciate your
personal communication to me as well as to the Committee Chair Dow
Constantine. I hope
that you will continue to keep me informed about your feelings on
this or any other matters. Sincerely, Kathy Lambert |