« Next Please | Main | Questions, Queries, Posers »
July 01, 2004
Tree-Huggers Gone Wild
The government of King Co., Washington is considering a new land-use law.
Known as the 65-10 Rule, 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.
May I suggest before they do so, they might want to consult an attorney who's not certifiably insane? There's this little thing called property rights they might want to investigate.
But supporters and environmentalists say personal property rights do not trump the rights of a larger community to save the eco-system.
Wanna bet the bank on that one, bunkie?
"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, which aims to promote healthy communities and cities while protecting farmland and forests.
How special. I regret to inform you that you aren't allowed to take people's property by fiat. You have to pay for it. It's a natural process of a capitalist democratic society.
Morons.
Posted by Rita at July 1, 2004 06:11 AM
Comments
Rita, someone's math doesn't add up. What happens with the remaining 25 percent? Thankfully, I don't live in King County (though the Bay Area isn't better).
Shyeah, like this isn't a taking. Someone ought to send a copy of the United States Constitution to King County, with the Fifth Amendment highlighted.
Posted by: Tony at July 1, 2004 03:59 PM
I wondered about that missing 25% too. Maybe they're not very good at math either.
Posted by: rita at July 1, 2004 04:45 PM
They already have zoning laws similiar to that in Southwest Florida (Collier County) and all the laws have accomplished is to drive the cost of a home through the roof.
The economics of the situation are such that if the landowner must set aside 35-60% of the property for tortoise preserves, eagle's nests, storm water retention and the like, not much is left to build on.
The folks who buy the actual buildable lots pay not only for the lot they built their houses on, they also pay for the land that was set aside.
So, the lot that should cost $30-$60k has to sell for $200k to cover the cost of the unbuildable land.
No one will pay $200k for a lot that should cost $30-$60k. Are you gonna pay that price when you can look out your bathroom window and see directly into your neighbor's living room, close enough to ask him to pick up the soap, hand you a towel or get you that extra roll of TP?
So the developer subdivides the land into larger lots, surrounds them with a wall and gates, calls it a "Gated Community" and sells what would have been two $60k lots for $1.2mil.
To the folks in Washing State... I hope that works out for ya... but the unintended consequences bit us in the ass down there in Florida.
Posted by: Mike S at July 1, 2004 06:37 PM
I think I have the proportions figured out, in this editorial piece by a couple advocates of this proposal:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001943662_cao01.html
65% - can't be touched
35% - can be cleared
10% (taken from the 35%) can be covered with impervious surfacing
It's still an effing retarded proposal. And since when is a proposal to place substantial prohibitions on 90% of one's land cound as being "anti-environment"?
Posted by: Tony at July 1, 2004 06:45 PM