Paul Guppy, Vice President for Research, May, 2015
- Fourteen years of experience under Washington’s once-controversial 1 percent property tax law shows it is working for the people of Washington; the budget disasters once predicted by opponents have not come true.
- Total revenue for state and local government has increased, while the 1 percent limit provides financial
Paul Guppy, Vice President for Research, July, 2014
Jeanette M. Petersen, WPC Adjunct Scholar, January, 2010
In its controversial five-to-four decision in the 2005 Kelo v. City of New London case, the U.S. Supreme Court gave government officials the power to take property from local homeowners and sell it to private corporations as part of a mandatory economic development plan.
William R. Maurer, Director, Institute for Justice, Washington Chapter Adjunct Scholar, Washington Policy Center, February, 2008
Each year, the state legislature considers a number of bills that address basic civil rights – that is, bills affecting an individual’s rights of personal liberty, rights with which the government cannot constitutionally interfere. One of those basic liberties is the right to own property. In the past two-and-a-half years since the U.S. Supreme Court’s dreadful decision in Kelo v. New London, the legislature has considered a number of bills designed to protect an individual’s right to own property without fear of the government taking it away and giving it to private developers.
Jason Mercier, Director, Center for Government Reform, February, 2008
On November 8, 2007 the state Supreme Court struck down the voter-approved 1% limit on increases in annual property tax collections. The legislature quickly overturned the court and re-enacted the 1% limit, but the court’s action put property tax relief center stage in the policy debate in Olympia.
William R. Maurer, Adjunct Scholar, January, 2007
The city of Burien, Wash., recently decided that a piece of property owned by the seven Strobel sisters that had long housed a popular diner-style restaurant was not upscale enough for the city's ambitious "Town Square" development, which will feature condos, shops, restaurants and offices. Rather than condemn the property for a private developer and risk a lawsuit, Burien came up with a plan--it would put a road through the property, and the city manager told his staff to "make damn sure" it did. When a subsequent survey revealed that the road would not affect the building itself, but only sideswipe a small corner of the property, the staff developed yet another site plan that put the road directly through the building. A trial court concluded that the city's actions might be "oppressive" and "an abuse of power"--but allowed the condemnation anyway. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Washington Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
William R. Maurer, Executive Director, Institute for Justice, Washington Chapter, December, 2006
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo decision has deeply shaken Americans. The ruling says the U.S. Constitution does not prevent state and local officials from seizing people’s homes and small businesses and giving them to private developers.