Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/23/2006 7:16:10 PM EST
I don't post to much but enjoy this forum many times a day. This is my first topic started. So here goes, 933 means a ton to myself and my family and many I know. This would give us some power back and stop this state from stealing our land. I will post a clip from the writers of 933, they say it much better than I ever could.
If this is not cool let me know and I will take it off right away. Thanks for taking the time to read this.
I-933 PROPERTY FAIRNESS INITIATIVE UPDATE





In This Update:



Potential for a stolen election in Skagit County ?
Grassroots energize over threat!
Insulting offer from GMA architect




Best Laid Plans…For a Stolen Election?



If your goal is to steal an election, what do you do first?



Create confusion.



Confusion creates malevolent opportunities. (Yes, the voter punched the chad but it is still hanging on the ballot. What did the voter intend? And … Oh, what are those boxes over there? They look like more ballots!)



Such may be the case in Skagit County .



The law that governs how initiatives are presented on the ballot has three provisions. The first is a caption describing the ballot measure number and topic; second is a 30-word sentence description of the measure that is written by the Attorney General’s office; and third, the question asking voters to vote for or against the measure.



In the Skagit County ballots item # 2 was omitted.



How would you vote if the guide said that I-933 dealt with government regulation of private property? If you believe government already takes too much land from citizens, you might likely vote no. But for I-933 to pass you have to vote yes.



In Skagit County , the one sentence description prepared by the AG was omitted. Could it be because opponents to I-933 challenged that sentence in court? Our Yes on I-933 campaign had to hire a lawyer and defend the title as written by the AG. We successfully defended the language in court, but now it disappears from the Skagit County ballot. One wonders.



Skagit County Auditor Norma Brummett and her staff have known about the printing error since at least Thursday afternoon, Oct. 19. Yet neither the County’s website (www.SkagitCounty.net) nor the Elections Department’s webpage has been updated to include any mention of the problem whatsoever. No notice to voters. No press release. Nothing.



The Skagit Valley Herald did run an article entitled, “Ballot error to be fixed by mailing,” in its Saturday edition. But good luck finding that article on the web, either. As of this morning, both the Herald’s Home page and its Local News page featured an update about a month-old pit bull attack as the lead article. A search of the Herald’s website using the title of Saturday’s article as well as “ballot” and “ballot error” showed NO matches. A Google search of the title came up empty too.



To make matters worse, this morning we learned that the mailing to voters, which the Auditor’s office claimed would go out today or tomorrow, is now scheduled to be “mailed out no later than Wednesday,” according to Auditor Brummett.



Skagit County voters have had their rights violated. They are entitled to vote legal ballots. Why isn’t the Auditor taking immediate action to inform voters of her office’s mistake? Maybe it is because she is up for re-election herself ….



*****



Pro I-933 Grassroots Responds



While acknowledgement of the Skagit County problem was hardly a ripple in news coverage over the weekend, rural grassroots emails were running hot enough to cook brisket.



The projected low turnout for next month’s election means that voters in Central and Eastern Washington will be a significant swing vote and could mean the difference in the success or failure of I-933.



All I hear today from the grassroots is anger over the Skagit mess. Is this another effort to disenfranchise voters in Central and Eastern Washington by setting the stage for manipulation of voter intent?



Well, we may have to win this election by outworking our opponents … Oh, wait, we’re already doing that.



The news in item one above has angered and energized our grassroots to even greater levels.



Now, continue on to read the next item and see if you don’t feel like going out and knocking on a few more doors.



In case you wondered, we appear to have missed the point -- the real solution to lost property rights is a statewide bond measure to buy up your development rights and do a little tweaking of the GMA, or so says the governor’s chief lobbyist. Keep reading.



*****



CHANGING THE SUBJECT



In newspaper articles appearing around the state this weekend, a chief architect of the Growth Management Act (and No on I-933 leader) proposed a statewide bond measure to help pay for purchasing development rights from farmers as a way to address the concerns behind I-933, the Property Fairness Initiative.



In addition, the Governor’s chief lobbyist said they would explore “ways to tweak the state Growth Management Act” next session.



(TWEAK! He actually said TWEAK!)



I-933 is not about development rights or “tweaking” the GMA.



I-933 is about restoring PROPERTY RIGHTS. Specifically, the right to use one’s property as one sees fit, so long as no harm is done to others.



Buying or leasing development rights does nothing to address the buffers, habitat set-asides and minimum native-vegetation coverage requirements that are keeping farmers and other property owners from using their land.



It also does nothing for the farmer who watches their prime farmland wash downstream due to erosion, and it does nothing for people who are harmed when agency bureaucrats won’t let them stop clogged creeks from flooding their homes. (See the video of Grace Fremouw at http://www.propertyfairness.com/video.htm)



Farmers want to farm.



Any property owner wanting to sell their land for development can already do so – under the GMA and local zoning rules as currently written. I-933 does nothing to change that.



I-933 simply restores fairness by giving landowners harmed by government action the ability to use their land in lawful ways or be compensated for the loss.



Once again, our opponents can’t win on the merits of the argument, so they resort to yet another red herring to distract the media and voters from the real issue.



But let’s not miss the opportunity to extend this invitation to the governor’s chief lobbyist to address the WFB annual meeting and explain what tweaking of the GMA he has in mind. We’ll be meeting in Yakima , November 14-16. The agenda is full but we’ll work you in for as long and you want to talk.





Helping to compile and write the daily updates are Pat Batts, Patrick Connor, Gary Joiner, Dan Wood and John Stuhlmiller. Its not a bad team when you’re trying to change the world.





It is not too late to help us get more TV and radio spots on the air! To contribute online, go to www.propertyfairness.com, or send a check to:



Property Fairness Coalition

PO Box 2446

Olympia, WA 98507


Again thanks for taking the time to read this and consider helping out with your yes vote. If it is not close they can't cheat.

Josh
Link Posted: 10/23/2006 7:38:15 PM EST
Absolutely. It will turn the gov't on it's head. They'll have to overturn it.
Link Posted: 10/23/2006 8:02:46 PM EST
DaBunny,
I am sure you are correct like everything else they overturn. We voters are to Dumb to even consider what we might want. But we can try, they have been trying to take my personal land for years and if this passes it would help us very much. Thanks again.

Josh
Link Posted: 10/23/2006 9:28:25 PM EST
I pray that I-933 passes, but I continue to assemble the only votes that count one component at a time.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 3:58:19 AM EST
Hell YES I'm voting for I-933. Its time to make them realize what property ownership means.

While we're at it why don't we make them all sit down, read the Consitution and then have Mr. Clevenger give them a test on it.

(Mr. C was my HS history teacher, a damn good one)
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 4:45:10 AM EST
Anyone have the actual text for this?
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 5:05:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/24/2006 5:10:10 AM EST by Da_Bunny]
NO

The Washington State Office of Financial Management estimates the cost to taxpayers for I-933 at $7 to $9 billion dollars.

Another independent study from the Northwest Center for Livable Communities at the University of Washington estimated the cost of I-933 to be $8 billion dollars.

Those taxpayer dollars would go to paying off some people just to follow the law instead of investing in important community needs.


YES

We want politicians to think before they act. Initiative 933 will require politicians and agencies to:

Tell us why they want new regulations.

Identify the properties they want to regulate.

Identify how much damage they will cause to the use and value of private property.

Determine if voluntary, cooperative programs can accomplish the goal.

If the politicians and agencies then decide to damage the use and value of private property, they must follow the state Constitution and pay for the damage.




The Full Text of I-933:


AN ACT Relating to providing fairness in government regulation of property; adding new sections to chapter 64.40 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 36.70A RCW; and creating new sections.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

INTENT TO REQUIRE FAIRNESS WHEN GOVERNMENT

REGULATES PRIVATE PROPERTY

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. This act is intended to protect the use and value of private property while providing for a healthy environment and ensuring that government agencies do not damage the use or value of private property, except if necessary to prevent threats to human health and safety. The people also intend to recognize and promote the unique interests, knowledge, and abilities private property owners have to protect the environment and land. To this end, government agencies must consider whether voluntary cooperation of property owners will meet the legitimate interests of the government instead of inflexible regulation of property.

The people find that over the last decade governmental restrictions on the use of property have increased substantially, creating hardships for many, and destroying reasonable expectations of being able to make reasonable beneficial use of property. Article I, section 16 of the state Constitution requires that government not take or damage property without first paying just compensation to the property owner. The people find that government entities should provide compensation for damage to property as provided in this act, but should also first evaluate whether the government's decision that causes damage is necessary and in the public interest.

The people find that eminent domain is an extraordinary power in the hands of government and potentially subject to misuse. When government threatens to take or takes private property under eminent domain, it should not take property which is unnecessary for public use or is primarily for private use, nor should it take property for a longer period of time than is necessary.

Responsible fiscal management and fundamental principles of good government require that government decision makers evaluate carefully the effect of their administrative, regulatory, and legislative actions on constitutionally protected rights in property. Agencies should review their actions carefully to prevent unnecessary taking or damaging of private property. The purpose of this act is to assist governmental agencies in undertaking such reviews and in proposing, planning, and implementing actions with due regard for the constitutional protections of property and to reduce the risk of inadvertent burdens on the public in creating liability for the government or undue burdens on private parties.



FAIRNESS WHEN GOVERNMENT REGULATES PRIVATE PROPERTY BY REQUIRING CONSIDERATION OF IMPACTS BEFORE TAKING ACTION

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 64.40 RCW to read as follows:

(1) To avoid damaging the use or value of private property, prior to enacting or adopting any ordinance, regulation, or rule which may damage the use or value of private property, an agency must consider and document:

(a) The private property that will be affected by the action;

(b) The existence and extent of any legitimate governmental purpose for the action;

(c) The existence and extent of any nexus or link between any legitimate government interest and the action;

(d) The extent to which the regulation's restrictions are proportional to any impact of a particular property on any legitimate government interest, in light of the impact of other properties on the same governmental interests;

(e) The extent to which the action deprives property owners of economically viable uses of the property;

(f) The extent to which the action derogates or takes away a fundamental attribute of property ownership, including, but not limited to, the right to exclude others, to possess, to beneficial use, to enjoyment, or to dispose of property;

(g) The extent to which the action enhances or creates a publicly owned right in property;

(h) Estimated compensation that may need to be paid under this act; and

(i) Alternative means which are less restrictive on private property and which may accomplish the legitimate governmental purpose for the regulation, including, but not limited to, voluntary conservation or cooperative programs with willing property owners, or other nonregulatory actions.

(2) For purposes of this act, the following definitions apply:

(a) "Private property" includes all real and personal property interests protected by the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, section 16 of the state Constitution owned by a nongovernmental entity, including, but not limited to, any interest in land, buildings, crops, livestock, and mineral and water rights.

(b) "Damaging the use or value" means to prohibit or restrict the use of private property to obtain benefit to the public the cost of which in all fairness and justice should be borne by the public as a whole, and includes, but is not limited to:

(i) Prohibiting or restricting any use or size, scope, or intensity of any use legally existing or permitted as of January 1, 1996;

(ii) Prohibiting the continued operation, maintenance, replacement, or repair of existing tidegates, bulkheads, revetments, or other infrastructure reasonably necessary for the protection of the use or value of private property;

(iii) Prohibiting or restricting operations and maintenance of structures necessary for the operation of irrigation facilities, including, but not limited to, diversions, operation structures, canals, drainage ditches, flumes, or delivery systems;

(iv) Prohibiting actions by a private property owner reasonably necessary to prevent or mitigate harm from fire, flooding, erosion, or other natural disasters or conditions that would impair the use or value of private property;

(v) Requiring a portion of property to be left in its natural state or without beneficial use to its owner, unless necessary to prevent immediate harm to human health and safety; or

(vi) Prohibiting maintenance or removal of trees or vegetation.

(c) "Damaging the use or value" does not include restrictions that apply equally to all property subject to the agency's jurisdiction, including:

(i) Restricting the use of property when necessary to prevent an immediate threat to human health and safety;

(ii) Requiring compliance with structural standards for buildings in building or fire codes to prevent harm from earthquakes, flooding, fire, or other natural disasters;

(iii) Limiting the location or operation of sex offender housing or adult entertainment;

(iv) Requiring adherence to chemical use restrictions that have been adopted by the United States environmental protection agency;

(v) Requiring compliance with worker health and safety laws or regulations;

(vi) Requiring compliance with wage and hour laws;

(vii) Requiring compliance with dairy nutrient management restrictions or regulations in chapter 90.64 RCW; or

(viii) Requiring compliance with local ordinances establishing setbacks from property lines, provided the setbacks were established prior to January 1, 1996.

This subsection (2)(c) shall be construed narrowly to effectuate the purposes of this act.

(d) "Compensation" means remuneration equal to the amount the fair market value of the affected property has been decreased by the application or enforcement of the ordinance, regulation, or rule. To the extent any action requires any portion of property to be left in its natural state or without beneficial use by its owner, "compensation" means the fair market value of that portion of property required to be left in its natural state or without beneficial use. "Compensation" also includes any costs and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred by the property owner in seeking to enforce this act.

FAIRNESS WHEN GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY REGULATES PRIVATE PROPERTY

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 64.40 RCW to read as follows:

An agency that decides to enforce or apply any ordinance, regulation, or rule to private property that would result in damaging the use or value of private property shall first pay the property owner compensation as defined in section 2 of this act. This section shall not be construed to limit agencies' ability to waive, or issue variances from, other legal requirements. An agency that chooses not to take action which will damage the use or value of private property is not liable for paying remuneration under this section.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 64.40 RCW to read as follows:

An agency may not charge any fee for considering whether to waive or grant a variance from an ordinance, regulation, or rule in order to avoid responsibility for paying compensation as provided in section 3 of this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 36.70A RCW to read as follows:

Development regulations adopted under this chapter shall not prohibit uses legally existing on any parcel prior to their adoption. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize an interference with the duties in chapter 64.40 RCW.

MISCELLANEOUS

NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purpose of this act to protect private property owners.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. Nothing in this act shall diminish any other remedy provided under the United States Constitution or state Constitution, or federal or state law, and this act is not intended to modify or replace any such remedy.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. Subheadings used in this act are not any part of the law.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. This act shall be known as the property fairness act.



My take is that it puts the "private" back in "private property."
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 5:10:40 AM EST
I'll vote for it, at least twice!
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 6:27:24 AM EST
I will be voting a big YES...I own 7 acres in the Carnation area and while I do not farm the land, it never has been. I am not allowed to do much with the land. Recently, I was red-tagged for bringing in some fine soil to raise a low area. That area did not hold water and was not a wet-land. Now I am going through the stupid process of pleasing the county. This will probably cost me something like $4,000. The civil engineer looks at this and says "What is the problem here?" He claims things (in King County) have gotten really bad in the last 5 years...As in 5 years ago this would have been a non-issue.

King county periodically sends out postcards encouraging residents to rat on thier neighbors for illegal clearing and other questionable practices. Can you spell F A C I S T. Oh and by the way, King County and I am sure others take arial photos of your land, just to keep you honest.

Vote Yes on 933
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 6:47:50 AM EST
Yup, you buy acerage, thinking you'll at least have firewood, but Noooooooooooooooo.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 7:08:02 AM EST
I can't wait to vote "YES"...it sickens me when the .gov gets to declair property off-limits for whatever solely on a whim. Anything that limits .gov power is a good thing.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 7:08:23 AM EST
voting for it, along with my entire family, but it may not be enough to counteract Queen County
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 8:05:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By sixgunsblazing:
voting for it, along with my entire family, but it may not be enough to counteract Queen County


+1 on all accounts....
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 8:10:20 AM EST

This is my first topic started. So here goes, 933 means a ton to myself and my family and many I know.


I'm voting for it, I think my wife will be as well.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 8:57:02 AM EST
I have often fantized about putting in an underground rifle range . Nothing fancy maybe one or two lanes. Acquire some large diameter culvert, say 4 feet, about 75 yards long, cover it with soil add some ventilation...But the permit process always gets in the way. Maybe someone should develop some software so we can generate our own permits . Now there's a solution.

Vote YES on 933
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 9:18:41 AM EST
Thanks guys, It makes a guy smile to think there are that many of us that still have the will to fight back. If anyone wants more info on this or signs contact these guys at the washington farm bureau. http://www.propertyfairness.com/

Josh
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 9:40:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/24/2006 9:46:05 AM EST by 2whiskeyP]
We are both voting for it. it will never pass though. Way too many apartment and condo owners in Seattle that don't give a shit about anyone that lives outside the city limits.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 10:33:22 AM EST
I will be voting yes...


But It is going to lose, ya see on my street alone one little housing development has more voters than there are farms on my road.... I live in the middle of farming.

King Co, NEWT's ( North Everett White Trash) and apartment dwellers are going to kill it for us.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 10:37:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By R-32:
I will be voting yes...


But It is going to lose,



But as said earlier, if for some reason it wins, the .gov will find or make up a reason the vote wasn't valid or some such thing and nullify it anyway.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 10:45:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By CSW223:
I have often fantized about putting in an underground rifle range . Nothing fancy maybe one or two lanes. Acquire some large diameter culvert, say 4 feet, about 75 yards long, cover it with soil add some ventilation...But the permit process always gets in the way. Maybe someone should develop some software so we can generate our own permits . Now there's a solution.

Vote YES on 933


You just need one of those portable RV shelters to keep over the backhoe and move along with the progress of the job. Dig one section, reinforce with wood or concrete, back fill, lay sod, move down to the next section, all concealed from satellite rays.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 11:30:08 AM EST
I just got off the phone with the guys running the 933 camp. They are saying we are doing pretty well in the last poll at 63% yes vote. I actually think we will win, remember to tell everyone you know about it and we have a shot. If it's not close they can't cheat.

Josh
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 3:50:46 PM EST
Personally I think it is a boondoggle, and will have far reaching, unintended consequences. I'm on the fence still about voting for or against it, but I have my reservations.

Questions:
Zoning? How is zoning affected by this? To me it would seem that this throws zoning regulations right out on its ear. So now my neighbor can sell his property to a commercial or industrial interest that intends to put in an asphalt company? In the middle of a housing development? Doesn't this Initiative basically say they are allowed to do that? Doing so would severely damage my property and its value.

Section 2(C)(i-viii) seem to cover these types of situations, but doesn't specifically limit the use of property that is designated for residential purposes versus commercial or industrial purposes. If this passes, can government even designate such zoning requirements?

Look, I'm all for property rights, and there are plenty of abuses. But there are abuses on both sides of the equation. Is it someone's right as a property owner to turn their property into a landfill if they want? Doesn't that action hurt the value and the rights of those around him?

Things like the King County CAO are bullshit, but I'm not certain that I-933 is the answer. My ballot is completely filled out except for two issues: I-933 and Proposition 1 (Renton Fireworks Ban reversal.) I'm studying both very carefully, and thankfully I have a few more weeks to make a decision.

One last thought: As written, I believe that I-933 will be declared unconstitutional at some level. This Blog indicates there is no wording in I-933 to grant execptions to conform with Federal laws. We all know that I-933 will land in court, just like every other initiative that has been passed in this state.

Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many initiatives have passed just to be over turned in the courts or by subsequent action by the legislature....
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 5:03:58 PM EST
Just because the worthless gov of Washington state screws us out of everything we vote for is not a reason to stop trying.

That said you question about zoning is one I have heard from a few people so I called the farm Bureau and asked them that exact question. There answer, this initiative will NOT let a land owner do anything he/she wants to on thier propertym IE if you want to put in a landfill on your property unless it was zoned that way you would not be able to. You would also have no recourse as to sue to state because you could not install said landfill.
The way the initiative is writen says, any zoning that was writen prior to 96 would be valid and non disputible. The reason they chose 96 is by that date almost all zoning had been set.
I am in no way connected to this campaign, I just think it is fair for the land owner to chose what is the correct thing to do on thier land as long as it does not harm someone else or their property value, and I think this initiative does just that. You can read the whole initive at. http://www.propertyfairness.com/933text.htm. atleast give it a shot.

Josh
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 5:14:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By zukguy:
Just because the worthless gov of Washington state screws us out of everything we vote for is not a reason to stop trying.

That said you question about zoning is one I have heard from a few people so I called the farm Bureau and asked them that exact question. There answer, this initiative will NOT let a land owner do anything he/she wants to on thier propertym IE if you want to put in a landfill on your property unless it was zoned that way you would not be able to. You would also have no recourse as to sue to state because you could not install said landfill.
The way the initiative is writen says, any zoning that was writen prior to 96 would be valid and non disputible. The reason they chose 96 is by that date almost all zoning had been set.
I am in no way connected to this campaign, I just think it is fair for the land owner to chose what is the correct thing to do on thier land as long as it does not harm someone else or their property value, and I think this initiative does just that. You can read the whole initive at. http://www.propertyfairness.com/933text.htm. atleast give it a shot.

Josh


I hope all zoning is not frozen there with no way to have it changed.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 6:01:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By zukguy:
You can read the whole initive at. http://www.propertyfairness.com/933text.htm. atleast give it a shot.

Josh


I'm reading through:
www.sightline.org/research/sprawl/res_pubs/property-fairness
noon933.org/index.php
www.propertyfairness.com/index.htm

If there any other good links, on either side of the issue, I'd like to have them for further research.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 6:46:58 PM EST
Voting yes, government shouldn't have a say in how private property is used anyways.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 7:15:58 PM EST
Sorry I don't have any links. I just read the initiative itself and that way I get the meat of it instead of what someone wants me to think. They can't hide anything in it just read the whole thing and you will know one way or the other.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 8:03:05 PM EST
+1 Yes. Land is either privately or publicly held - no flim-flam BS. Gov't can't shoudn't have it both ways.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 8:04:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By jonathon:
Voting yes, government shouldn't have a say in how private property is used anyways.


So I can put a lead smelter right next to your house? Cool! Maybe I'll put in a paper mill too. I'll be right down!
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 8:13:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By Scollins:

Originally Posted By jonathon:
Voting yes, government shouldn't have a say in how private property is used anyways.


So I can put a lead smelter right next to your house? Cool! Maybe I'll put in a paper mill too. I'll be right down!


Thats was the philosophy of the soviet union, it won't work out any better for you.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 8:25:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By Scollins:

Originally Posted By jonathon:
Voting yes, government shouldn't have a say in how private property is used anyways.


So I can put a lead smelter right next to your house? Cool! Maybe I'll put in a paper mill too. I'll be right down!


Let's not stray to far off topic. As said before, you would not be able NOT be able to put anything like a paper mill only what your property is zoned for nothing more nothing less.

This is an important issue, Gov already has to much power why give them anymore? Time to take some of our rights back, if it's not our land, why do you have the right to own a gun? Why do we have the right to do anything the Gov thinks we should not do? We are supposed to have rights remember? I for one am tired of having less and less.

Josh
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 8:37:23 PM EST
I'm voting Yes and I hope to hell it passes. My biggest fear is that I will be outvoted by dead people!
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 8:48:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

Originally Posted By Scollins:

Originally Posted By jonathon:
Voting yes, government shouldn't have a say in how private property is used anyways.


So I can put a lead smelter right next to your house? Cool! Maybe I'll put in a paper mill too. I'll be right down!


Thats was the philosophy of the soviet union, it won't work out any better for you.


My point was that some government involvement is a necessary evil. If everyone just runs around and says "it's private property, I can do whatever I what with it, and the government should keep its hand off" then we basically have an anarchy on our hands. Jonathon said that government shouldn't have a say in how private property can be used, so who would? Anyone? No one? Without some sort of government to regulate it, what would stop me from doing just what I posted?

The Soviet Union example doesn't really have any correlation to this. That was their government acting in that manner, same with the current situation in China. There has to be balance. Is there balance now? No, obviously there is not. Will I-933 bring balance? I do not think so.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 8:53:24 PM EST
I love how often the free market and competitive capitalism is called anarchy and how chaos and lawlesness will result if we do not have government regulation, inspite of thousands of years of history to the contrary.

shakes head and sighs
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 8:55:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By Scollins:

Originally Posted By jonathon:
Voting yes, government shouldn't have a say in how private property is used anyways.


So I can put a lead smelter right next to your house? Cool! Maybe I'll put in a paper mill too. I'll be right down!


You could put both right next door and it'd be fine with me. I live next to the Washougal MX track, there are times when both the traffic and the noise are high, but it's their property, they have a right to do as they please.

As long as they are not destroying my property(or affecting it, like as in ground water), I don't give a shit.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 8:57:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By zukguy:

Let's not stray to far off topic. As said before, you would not be able NOT be able to put anything like a paper mill only what your property is zoned for nothing more nothing less.
Josh


What if the land was zoned as industrial prior to 1996, but was changed to residential in 2002? If I bought the land in 2006, and I-933 was in effect, couldn't I sue the state for compensation, since the zoning wouldn't allow me the use of the property as I see fit?

If any zoning was changed after 1996, then what is the standard that is applied? Let's say you have a rural 10 acres in King County right now, zoned R-10. That means only one residential dwelling per 10 acres. You can only have one house on your 10 acres. You can't subdivide your own land and sell it under the current system. Let's say that zoning was established in 2002, and you bought the property in 2003. Before that, it was zoned R-20 (prior to 1996.) Since it happened after 1996, can you sue the state to have the zoning changed again? And changed to what? It would prevent you from subdividing your own property. You want to sell those 10 acres as subdivided land to a develop for a huge profit and move to Idaho because they allow class 3 stuff.

Again, I think the intent of I-933 is correct in wanting to reclaim lost property rights, I just don't know that it will really accomplish that goal.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 9:01:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
I love how often the free market and competitive capitalism is called anarchy and how chaos and lawlesness will result if we do not have government regulation, inspite of thousands of years of history to the contrary.

shakes head and sighs


I never said free market and competitive capitalism was anarchy. I said that every one doing whatever they wanted was anarchy. I know you believe in the common law of man, but there are many out there that don't, or would just take advantage of the system. That system begins with the premise that all men are fair and just. Obviously, many are not fair and just, but evil.

Also, what thousands of years of history are you referring to? Surely not in any "modern age of man." There hasn't been any civilization without some form of govenrment for at least 4,000 years.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 9:04:35 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 9:07:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
I love how often the free market and competitive capitalism is called anarchy and how chaos and lawlesness will result if we do not have government regulation, inspite of thousands of years of history to the contrary.

shakes head and sighs


You have what like 5 acres what have you to lose???? Try complaining when you have 500+. The regulations on what you can do,(Chems) pest, herb, Fert, watersheds etc,etc is a nightmare.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 9:16:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By 161Infantry:

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
I love how often the free market and competitive capitalism is called anarchy and how chaos and lawlesness will result if we do not have government regulation, inspite of thousands of years of history to the contrary.

shakes head and sighs


You have what like 5 acres what have you to lose???? Try complaining when you have 500+. The regulations on what you can do,(Chems) pest, herb, Fert, watersheds etc,etc is a nightmare.


Would managing 8000 acres above chief Joe dam count as knowing what agribiz is all about ?

you assume too much my friend.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 9:35:49 PM EST
I don't have all the answers to the questions on 933, as I have said before if you have questions go and read the text directly from the initiative, if you still have questions call the farm bureau they will answer any and all questions you have. But really just read the dang thing, it spells it out for you, then you can make up your own mind.
Honestly I really don't want to debate it or argue about it, I simply asked to consider voting for it. I own land and my family and everyone that knows me will be voting for it. Hope you never have to go up against the state when you want to cut a tree or clear some land to plant crops, then you might understand how this effects us,

Josh
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 5:44:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

Originally Posted By 161Infantry:

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
I love how often the free market and competitive capitalism is called anarchy and how chaos and lawlesness will result if we do not have government regulation, inspite of thousands of years of history to the contrary.

shakes head and sighs


You have what like 5 acres what have you to lose???? Try complaining when you have 500+. The regulations on what you can do,(Chems) pest, herb, Fert, watersheds etc,etc is a nightmare.


Would managing 8000 acres above chief Joe dam count as knowing what agribiz is all about ?

you assume too much my friend.

Managing and owning are two different things, especailly if its BLM land.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 8:25:42 AM EST
Remember, that with an Initiative the Legislature can modify or completely ignore it after two years...
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 12:11:40 PM EST
So this came right out of...

New York City?!


Ballot Measures Seek Limited Government
By DAVID CRARY
ASSOCIATED PRESS



NEW YORK (AP) - He lives in New York City; his name is on no ballot. Yet real estate investor Howard Rich is a key reason why citizens in distant states will be voting Nov. 7 on bitterly contested initiatives that would limit state spending, impose term limits and curb land-use regulation.

Rich is a libertarian who vigorously champions the cause of limited government. He is the driving force behind a network of groups that has promoted ballot measures in at least 14 states this year.

...


Damn city people need to mind their own business...
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 2:46:37 PM EST
Voted yes.

Link Posted: 10/27/2006 4:50:29 PM EST
Thanks guys, here is an update from the 933 headquarters. This is getting rich.

As usual, we ask that you forward this email to your lists. You won’t believe what we’ve uncovered in the disclosure reports and what the newspapers refuse to report to their readers!








I-933 PROPERTY FAIRNESS INITIATIVE UPDATE

from the desk of Patrick Batts, Administrative Vice President

Washington Farm Bureau





In this update:



* Latest Poll Shows Dead Heat

* Enron, World’s Richest Developer Funding “No on I-933” Campaign

* Help Us Reach More Voters





LATEST POLL SHOWS DEAD HEAT



Preliminary results from a Moore Information poll commissioned by the Property Fairness Coalition shows voters evenly split on I-933, with a large percentage still undecided.



This is very good news.



Despite millions of dollars being spent to blanket the airwaves with misleading ads against us, the opposition still can’t convince a majority of voters to agree with them.



But they won’t give up. And neither can we!



The opposition literally has at least three of the world’s richest men financing its multi-million dollar ad campaign.



Fortunately, we have YOU.



We need all of you to keep up the good work talking to your friends and neighbors, writing letters to the editor, sending I-933 postcards to your family and colleagues, calling radio shows, and doing all you can to inform voters. Undecided voters need to hear from you!



We can win this campaign if we keep up the intensity!





*****



ENRON ATTORNEY, WORLD’S RICHEST DEVELOPER FUNDING “NO ON I-933” CAMPAIGN



That’s a headline you won’t see in newspapers anytime soon, although there is more truth to it than there is to recent headlines screaming “N.Y. mogul key to I-933 movement,” (Olympian, Oct. 27) and the like.



The opposition and their lap-dog friends in the media continue to yelp that Howard Rich, a wealthy New York real estate investor, has contributed to several property rights and tax limitation ballot measures around the nation, including our own I-933. Never mind that the funds are actually from an organization called Americans for Limited Government (ALG), not Rich himself. By why should reporters concern themselves with details?



The implication is that somehow out-of-state money, especially from a … gasp … wealthy Libertarian, (or the free-market organization he chairs) is a bad thing.



Funny how the same logic doesn’t seem to apply to the No on I-933 campaign, as least as far as the media are concerned.



Citizens for Community Protection, the official No committee, has received $740,895.73 from out-of-state sources, including nearly $545,000 from the Virginia-based Nature Conservancy.



If Rich, as ALG’s Chairman, is the “driving force behind … Initiative 933,” (Seattle Times, Oct. 27) for his group’s financial support of the Property Fairness Coalition, then the opposition is controlled by California billionaire John Morgridge, Chairman of Cisco Systems, and Texas attorney Carol Dinkins, whose law firm represented Enron. The two are Chair and Vice Chair of The Nature Conservancy, respectively.



Another large out-of-state donor to the No campaign is Enterprise Community Partners of Maryland, founded by real estate developer James W. Rouse, a father of urban renewal and builder of the first mall east of the Mississippi . Enterprise Community Partners has developed 190,000 homes across the country.



But that isn’t the only developer among the No’s contributors. In fact, there are more than 60 businesses and individuals from real estate, planning, construction and other development-related industries including the world’s richest developer – Paul Allen, through his firm Vulcan, Inc.



It makes sense that Allen’s Vulcan Development wants to limit housing outside of Seattle ’s urban growth boundary. How else will they fill all those high-end condos being built in the Denny Triangle?



And, we can’t forget to list Bill Gates among the prominent No donors.



So that makes three of the World’s Richest Men: Bill Gates, Paul Allen and John Morgridge, along with Enron lawyer Carol Dinkins, who are bankrolling the No on I-933 campaign and colluding to rob Washingtonians of the use and value of their private property.



And if you count George Soros, whose leftist “Center for Public Integrity” has been used as cover from which to attack ALG and Howard Rich, that brings to four the number of Forbes’ List of the World’s Richest People who are lined up against us.



But don’t expect to read about that in the newspapers.







It is not too late to help us reach more voters!



To contribute online, go to www.propertyfairness.com, or send a check to:



Property Fairness Coalition

PO Box 2446

Olympia, WA 98507



Please note that contributions are not tax deductible. Contributions cannot exceed $5,000 in the aggregate from any one source beginning October 17.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 6:56:29 PM EST
The woman in this photo does not support I-933:

Link Posted: 10/27/2006 8:27:23 PM EST
That's funny because I don't support her. Nor did the majority of the state, man she is HOT, Rosanne Barr Hot.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 1:28:49 PM EST
She is tall for a woman. Who is the short guy on the left?
Top Top