Washington State Ballot Initiative 933

Of the several state-wide initiatives on Tuesday's ballot, Initiative 933 is the most controversial. If it goes into effect the government would be required to compensate property owners for any change in the value of their land that results from public regulation such as environmental laws or zoning.  At first read, this may sound like a boon to home owners or farmers, but there is a serious catch.

I-933 and similar measures in 8 other states have been funded by out-of-state business concerns like Americans for Limited Government and New York based developer Howard Rich.  As Seattle Metropolitan magazine reported, a similar but more limited initiative passed in Oregon (Ballot Measure 37) at a public cost of $4 billion.  (A non-partisan University of Washington study puts the cost of I-933 to Washington taxpayers at $7.8 billion). In Oregon as in Washington, the measure's supporters presented themselves as farmers.  But many farmers haven't benefited:

The Oregon campaign's irresistible poster child was a feisty nonagenarian widow named Dorothy English who'd tried for 33 years to subdivide her 20 acres near Portland.  Two years later, "I haven't gotten anything under [Measure 37], says English.  For [rural farmer Renée] Ross, the measure's consequences have been unexpected and "catastrophic."  After it passed, her neighbors on one side claimed the right to build a residential subdivision.  The owners on the other put in for a gravel mine.  Clackamus County commissioners, lacking funding to pay these landowners (and hundreds more) who've filed Measure 37 claims, waived the laws that forbid subdivisions and gravel mines on land zoned exclusively for farming.

...

Here in Washington, I-933 would apply more broadly than Measure 37 does in Oregon, where only land-use rules can be waived: I-933 would trump any law or regulation that might affect property values, including environmental protections.

But the Washington and US constitutions already require the government to pay property owners just compensation before taking or damaging private property.  I-933 goes further, and would force communities to choose between waiving land protections and paying property owners not to build.  And because the measure's backers don't have a plan to fund I-933, communities would often just have to give up. As a result, Washington residents would have no assurance their neighborhoods would remain livable, and indeed, their property values could plummet.

Many Oregon voters regret having passed their similar measure.  Let's not make the same mistake in Washington.