Matthew Manweller, Adjunct Scholar, November, 2006
In the recent election, Initiative 933 – a proposal to compensate property owners for value lost to government regulations – failed, but the consequences created by burgeoning land-use regulations remain. Fears that Initiative 933’s passage would inhibit the ability of local and state governments to maintain the rural areas in our state were one reason the initiative failed. Unfortunately, opponents of Initiative 933 failed to grasp the counterintuitive notion that, sometimes, laws designed to protect rural areas actually backfire and cause additional development.
Todd Myers, Director, Center for the Environment, October, 2006
Across the United States, there are a growing number of “property fairness” initiatives designed to increase protection for individual landowners from the rise in land use regulation. The most significant of these efforts to have success was Measure 37 which passed in Oregon in 2004 earning 61% of the vote statewide.
Seattle - Washington Policy Center, the state’s premier public policy, independent research organization, released a new study analyzing Initiative 933, which will appear on the ballot this November. The statewide initiative builds on Oregon’s Measure 37 passed by voters two years ago. “A Citizens Guide to Initiative 933: Property Fairness Initiative” takes a section-by-section look at the wording of I-933 and examines some of the most common critiques of the initiative.
Todd Myers, Director, Center for the Environment, September, 2006
A growing trend of “property fairness” initiatives, proposals designed to increase protection for individual landowners from the rise in land-use regulation, has reached Washington state in the form of Initiative 933. The philosophy behind the initiative is similar to the thinking that underlies most environmental regulation.
John Barnes, Policy Analyst, May, 2006
It’s an age-old story. A criminal shoots someone, and then politicians propose gun-control measures that would have done nothing to prevent the shooting. On March 26, Kyle Huff killed six people at a late-night party in Seattle. Seattle mayor Greg Nickels immediately called for more regulations on guns. None of his proposals would have prevented the tragedy.
Seattle- Washington Policy Center released a new study today, "Oregon's Measure 37 Property Rights Law, Lessons from the First Eleven Months." Todd Myers, Director of the Center for Environmental Policy for WPC, evaluates the effects of Oregon's Measure 37 and provides a perspective on what Washington citizens might expect if a similar law were to pass in our state. The study is the first comprehensive look at the impact of the Measure in Oregon.
Todd Myers, Director, Center for the Environment, July, 2005
Last November, Oregon voters overwhelmingly passed Measure 37, a law requiring the state and counties either to pay landowners for lost property value when new zoning restrictions are imposed, or allow owners to operate under the rules in place when they bought the property. Supporters and opponents said Measure 37 would radically change the landscape of Oregon. The reality, however, is turning out to be less revolutionary than either side expected.
William R. Maurer, Adjunct Scholar, June, 2005
Property owners are reeling from recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court relegated the right to own property to second-class status. However, the Court's actions are inconsistent with our Constitution and denigrate the role private ownership of property plays in our system of government.
Russ Brooks & William R. Maurer, September, 2004
In March 2004, King County Executive Ron Sims proposed a series of new ordinances that, if enacted, would become some of the most restrictive regulations on the use of private property in the United States. Loosely referred to as the Critical Areas Package (CAP), these proposals have already received nationwide attention and have become the subject of heated controversy between rural landowners on one hand and county government and environmentalists on the other.
A new Policy Note from Washington Policy Center, written by William R. Maurer and Russ Brooks, addresses the negative impact that proposed Growth Management rules would have on rural landowners' property rights in King County.
In March 2004, King County Executive Ron Sims proposed a series of new ordinances that, if enacted, would become some of the most restrictive regulations on the use of private property in the United States.