Enforced conservation

[dgibson]

Here's an interesting turn of the worm. From Fox News:

Private Property May Become Preserved
Thursday, July 01, 2004

KING COUNTY, Wash. — Residents of King County, Wash., will only be able to build on 10 percent of their land, according to a new law being considered by the county government, which, if enacted, will be the most restrictive land use law in the nation.

Known as the 65-10 Rule (search), it calls for landowners to set aside 65 percent of their property and keep it in its natural, vegetative state. According to the rule, nothing can be built on this land, and if a tree is cut down, for example, it must be replanted. Building anything is out of the question.

Most of the residents who will be directly affected by the regulations — those who own property in the rural areas of the country — are fuming. They see the new regulations as a land grab and a violation of their property rights.

"My take is it's stealing — out and out stealing," said county resident Marshall Brenden. "They're taking 65 percent of your land that you fought for years to pay for, paid mortgages on and now you can't use it."

But supporters and environmentalists say personal property rights do not trump the rights of a larger community to save the eco-system (search).

"We're trying to keep the rural area a place that isn't just McMansions and ball courts, but instead has those natural processes," said Tim Trohimovich of the group 1000 Friends of Washington (search), which aims to promote healthy communities and cities while protecting farmland and forests.

The plan is being pushed by King County Executive Ron Sims, who is currently running for governor.

MY OPINION: While I'm all for conservation, this seems a little over the top. It's one thing to require environmentally-friendly practices and quite another to effectively condemn 65% of a piece of property without compensation or means of appeal.

There's lots of questions to be answered, too...does this apply to ALL property? If so, then that makes the minimum lot size 1.65x bigger than before. In other words, subdivisions can't pack houses into little bitty lots, because 65% of the lot has to be left to its "natural, vegetative state." So, you figure the house and a bit o' yard, say 1/2 acre, then the minimum lot size would have to be 1/2 acre + 65% "natural" = 3/4 acre per lot. There went the tract homes and trailer parks. I expect that a lot of people would have complaints about that.

 

[Ten Bears]

I agree with it. I bet they'd have to "grandfather in" all the existing track home developments and trailer parks.

 

[Bambistew]

They have a similar thing here. In the southern half of one of our county's there is a moritorium in effect to limit subdivisions to 20 acre parcels... The only way around it is to subdivide between family members, who then must keep the property in their possesion for 10 years(I think, might only be 5) then they can sell to whom ever they wish. The county just wants to keep DC people out...

 

[Tom]

Its kind of an after the fact set asside for parks, etc. it sounds like. 65%, wow, everyone can start building high rises.

My neighbor haits my bushes and trees in the backyard, he says its home for snakes, mice, varmints, etc. The neighborhood cats like to hang out there though. He keeps hearing stuff in the leaves at night, so I baited and caught something to see what it was.

A big toad. I left it for baiting snakes. Finally, it rotted and got eaten by ants.

It would be good for some city folks to see some plants, etc.

 

[dgibson]

Bambistew, Fayette County (Lexington horse country) here in KY has a similar law; no parcels under 20 acres. That's done in an attempt to preserve the "horse farm" atmosphere of the area (i.e., rolling hills and pastures instead of subdivisions and trailer parks). That's not the same thing as the Washington thing, though. Fayette prevents people from ever buying property unless they can afford to buy at least 20 acres of it. In Washington they're trying to say that you can buy whatever you want, but you're going to pay for 65% more than you can use, no matter what. That's a significant difference. Plus, it sounds like it might be retroactive, meaning that people who already own property are also banned from using more than 65%. "You paid for it, you own it, you pay annual taxes on it, but you can't do anything with it."

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Tom:
He keeps hearing stuff in the leaves at night, so I baited and caught something to see what it was.

A big toad. I left it for baiting snakes. Finally, it rotted and got eaten by ants.

That is pretty damn funny.... Not sure why Tom leaving toads in SI, but I had to laugh....

D-Gib,
In our county here, you can't get a building permit for less than 40 acres, unless you go through Planning and Zoning. (Which, seems to approve everything, but that is another issue>)

Actually the King County one could be all right, depending on how it gets implemented.

If the practice is if you buy an acre lot, .65 acres must be left in natural trees, and the .35 (12000 square feet) could be house/yard/parking/pool etc... that ratio could be lived with.

Here in all the tract subdivisions, the lots are about 10-12k square feet, and they build 1500 foot houses. Add parking and a front yard, and it could be done....

 

[ELKCHSR]

This is exactly the land grabbing, by exactly the same people, in exactly the same place I was mentioning here a couple years ago, and a few just wouldn't believe that the Government would out right steal any ones land....

 

[BuzzH]

It isnt the Feds to blame on this one...its the County.

Elkcheese, if I remember right, you were complaining about the Feds and how they land grab...I never heard you mention anything about state, county, or city government being land grabbers.

Maybe my memory is just bad.

 

[ELKCHSR]

I said the Government if I remember right, I think most people only see the Government as the Feds which really isn't true...
It's not the Feds working on driving Boing out of the area, it is local Government. I suppose in hind sight, so that you can differentiate between the different entities, you should ask at the time...

 

[Curly]

I heard a little bit about this on the radio today, but I was working and did not catch all the details. I think they said it was for areas that were zoned for 5 acre lots.

The reason for doing it has to do with stormwater runoff (at least thats one of their main excuses).

Currently, the county has no authority over an individual lot owner that wants to clear his land. However, if a developer has 200 acres and wanted to make a 40-lot subdivision of 5-ac lots, then a county permit would be required. Then the developer would be required to have a civil engineer design stormwater pond or ponds and treatment facilities; no drainage greater than the existing condition could leave the site. Most likely covenants would be written up to limit percentage of clearing that could be done and to limit the amount of impervious surface allowed on each lot. But when no subdivision of land is occuring, like in 5-acre lots that already exist, then the county currently has no involvement.

It just drives the environmentalists crazy when a lot owner cuts down all his trees and brush on his 5-acre lot and makes it into a gravel parking lot for his motorhome, atv's, snowmobiles, trailers and other toys.

The guys promoting the bill do have a good point; trees and other vegetation are good for the aquafir and the streams because it slows peak rate of runoff into the stream and filters the runoff. However, telling people what they can do on their property just won't sit well with most people.

 

[JoseCuervo]

In almost all areas of the country worth living, there are limits to what you can do with private property, thankfully.

The "government" is not some independent outside party, but is the elected representatives of the people living there. There is a process called voting to remove people if something "doesn't sit well"....

 

[ELKCHSR]

I would have hoped out of all the people on the board, you would have done a little home work before putting up such statements.
While you are correct about voting and by the people for the people.
These individuals have been apointed and not voted into any thing. They make these rules and are entrenched so well, it is almost impossible to get rid of them. Kinda like the bad seeds that sit in FS possitions Buzz talked about a couple years ago, those that you show the truth to, and butt your head against, but go no where.
Most of the people impacted by the new rules don't have the money to fight these Government people in court and the big developers don't worry to much about cost, they get things pushed thru regardless of the rules. Money here talks. I am not saying any one here is corrupt by the way the bring in the rules or work them. Where they are corrupt is in their morrals about the sanctity of private property and who really owns the land and pay's these peoples salaries...

 

[BuzzH]

I think what people get sick of is having Fred and Lemont moving in next door and setting up shop.

If you choose to set up a junkyard on your place, it effects the value of neighboring properties.

Thats an infringement on my property rights...and it will be dealt with. Thats why many of these types of laws exist, people dont like looking at trashy homes...well unless you live in an Anaconda.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Elkcheese,

Is there a town nearby that you can drive to, and buy a clue, since you sure can't find any in Anaconda?

Who are "These people" that are making these decisions, that you are against??? And how did "These people" get into power??? My guess is, via a ballot box. Name me one government employee with decision making authority that is not beholden to the ballot box, directly or indirectly???

Don't just sit and whine and cry about things in government if you don't even have the knowledge of a 9th grade Civics class.

And you are completely wrong about corporations not caring about legal costs. That is one of the most stupid statements you could make (other than defending your backcuts). How do you think we are getting all the improvements made on Public Lands??? By suing the Hell out of the Corporations (Welfare Ranchers, Power Companies, Timber Companies) in order to make their projects either compatible with OUR values on Public Lands or too expensive to go forward.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Or Laramie
I have seen people move in to those areas where this is all going on, and then try to change the world to fit into what they think is right. It has some to do with what you stated, it has more to do with those that want to change things to fit their narrow views on from whence the came from. It is not the native locals that are the most voiceful about these new heavy handed rules that continualy bash this region...