Posted: 10/7/2006 2:23:34 PM EDT
Can someone explain what I-933 is?
|
| It seems to be a gap filler to cover the supreme court ruling on eminent domain. The problem is that it seems a little broad and will still allow the goverment to restrict your use of property, but they have to document it and say why they think it's a good thing. |
You know, I have been wondering about this also, Im seeing Vote yes, and Vote No " to save our farms" and " to save our houses"... I really need to read about it, but is sounds like a bad thing both directions from the people I have asked... |
|
www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/I933.pdf www.noon933.org/ I agree about loopholes. Just reading it made my head hurt. www.sightline.org/research/sprawl/res_pubs/property-fairness?gclid=CPnX9vOO6IcCFQxjYAod9026hw |
|
I've read the initiative several times now, and I would have to make copies to draw arrows, make margin notes and draw a lot of lines to be able to actually understand the details. In principal, I agree that the government should have to compensate landowners if they pass laws that suddenly diminish the value of land that can be realized by the owners. That is not unlike any other form of a "taking" as set out in the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, a certain amount of regulation may be necessary to keep us from making a cesspool out of wetlands etc. Just don't trust the government to be making all of these decisions. Haven't decided yet which way I am going to vote. |
| Basically, if the government says no to something you want to do with your property, they have to give you money or let you do it. I will be voting against 933 because many people are going to want money for things that have been turned down and nobody has specified where that money will come from. |
|
How many initiatives have been passed by the voters of WA only to have them over-turned by the judiciary ? Too many ! While I sympathize with the intent of 933 there is nothing good that can come from it being the Washington state constitution is unenforced. Passing laws in hopes of getting a lawless government to enforce the law is a non-sequitur to me. |
One of the failings of some few initiatives is that they are written by people who do not research our state constitution well enough. In some, not all by far, cases the court has little choice but to invalidate an act of the people if it is itself in contradiction with the constitution. This would have been one method of avoiding the tyranny of the majority over the minority. The lesson is to do a better job of writing. In other cases, yes, the legislature has ignored the legal will of the people, and the courts have failed to hold their feet to the fire. But, is it then the best course to give up trying the passage of intiatives as one avenue to attempt to reign in an out of control government? Shouldn't this be a constant and vigilant effort by the citizenry, regardless of probable outcome, and even if other means are ultimately necessary? Even many of our own founding fathers continued to seek redress and recognition of their rights as Englishmen from the crown, well after it was well apparant that such was futile. They continued until ultimately they were forced to the final course left them by the governments actions. They then cited many of these legal attempts and proper and legal means as grounds for the sundering of the relationship between the colonies and England. While I will not, and do not, argue that there doesn't come a time in the affairs of men when only the voice of the musket will be heard by the tyrant, that does not obviate the need for men of conscience and laws to make every attempt at any other avenue of redress and continued participation in our society. ETA: Not a rhetorical question, really wasn't sure what the thing really says. 
|
If the evil done by the organized criminal cabal within government was sufferable I whole heartedly agree with you but the latest actions of this government are insufferable, each petition is answered with greater injury pursuing invariably the same object, as such status quo ROE is suicide !
|
|
So, we have reached the threshold, or critical mass, where men of conscience and honor have no other choice but to take up arms against the oppressor, regardless of the outcome? We have reached the point where our sacred honor allows no other course of action? Or do we continue to wait and allow ourselves to remain yoked and shackled by an illegal and corrupt government? What is our call to arms, our "one if by land, two if by sea? Who hangs the lantern in the old North Church? How do we manage to avoid letting the tides in the affairs of men wax and then wane without us? Talk has always been cheap in the world of mankind. Since our time of sacrifice and endeavor has come, when does the citizen put down the pen and take up the sword? Many talk like their line in the sand was crossed long ago by our overlords, yet little has been seen or heard from them except words, the same words as always, regardless of how late the hour. Are you ready to blow the trumpet? |
|
| Absolutely understand and agree with the concept of deliberate delay. But, that still doesn't answer the question. Is there an event so intolerable to require immediate action? If not, what prevents this from becoming a non-ending game of preparation, for can you ever be prepared enough for battle? The colonies had little enough preparation before risking all. Who will be making that fateful decision? Will a Congress of the people be assembled to debate and decide? Or are we supposed to just wait for whoever and whenever? |
|
Something new to consider: seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003297082_proprights10m.html A whole bunch of 'our' ex-guvernor-critters have banded together to fight off I-933 Read the I-933 info page here. I get really nervous when all the goverment types start getting on the same page, it usually means that the poor citizens are about to get the shaft. What really started this was the Supreme Court ruling that obviously violated the 5th amendment when they ruled that land could be taken because the city wanted to build a mall, which would generate tax revenue and benefit everyone. www.libertynews.org/2005/06/24/ruled-by-5/ www.libertynews.org/2005/10/05/hands-off-my-home/ In Washington they are slightly more subtle. They do things like add set-backs from 'salmon streams' that effectivly reduce the usable amount of property to something the size of Berzerker77's travel trailer. But they want you to keep paying taxes on it. Its not like they actually took it, you know. You just can't use it. |
Not really. While the original question was specifically about 933 which in theory is supposed to slow down the theft of our property by the .gov we are now talking about the broader strokes of the evil doings of our state officials and what if anything, including initiatives should be done about it. So it is still a variation of the original topic. |
Didn't mean to take it off topic. Was interested by Strat's comments about the futility of it. That led to a broader discussion, but still relevant I believe, at least tangentially. Always interested in what Strat has to say, particularly when he talks outside of quotes. |
Some people just give up when the going gets tough, its simply human nature. 
|
I'm voting yes because it hamstrings the .gov from screwing us on property rights. Your identifying there is no specific funding is exactly where it will be challenged in court. If you were concerned about this hitting you in the wallet, that's going to happen regardless if this passes or not. |
|
The big money and communists are against I-933 so as members said above a vote in favor is a vote against the commie interests. How-ever I believe in the constitutional republic form of government and that requires a limited democratic vote in accord with the constitution, but the current system is a pure democratic majority vote with no limitations or competent electors, there-fore to vote in this system is to deny the rule of law according to our constitution. To vote is to give consent, approval and abdicate your sovereignty. Ofcourse this requires men of good character and sound mind to form jural societies/town-ships, precincts and counties, these bodies can then enforce the constitution according to the spirit in which it was intended. |
|
Thanks for the reply, I do understand your point, and am in sympathy with most of it. Am interested in a couple of points though. What would, under the constitution, qualify as a "competant voter". Also more in depth about the structure of the grassroots levels of the system. It would seem the county is at the top of the local government? Must admit, no real surprise here, but little of this was covered in my ConLaw class. Am interested in going back to it and trying to see it in a new light. Always willing to stretch my mind and my knowledge. Thanks. |
I highly recommend Dr. Edwin Vieira phd. constitutional law class and his most recent lectures touch on common law, basically common law is Lex Non-Scripta (unwritten law is non-statutory but superior in local jurisdiction only). A "competent elector" is traditionally a head of a house-hold property owner, a "property owner" is some-one that owns their own self and educated enough to understand what that means. The law bosses people around, or at least the makers of the law create it to boss people around, and that is OK as long as the individual consents or unless the individual has forfieted it's sovereingty by injury to persons or proterty without just cause (crime). It is simple easy to understand governance, polution of property is a tresspass against neighboring lands and there-fore allows the people to correct/ render justice for the injury. For those interested in the basic common law principles this short piece does a good job explaining. The philosophy of Liberty |
Well your argument has made up my mind. I do not have big money and I am most definetly NOT a communist, but you have convinced me to vote no. Thanks |