Posted on 06/30/2004 8:21:48 PM PDT by Stoat
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Sorry, my mistake. The dateline for this story is June 30, 2004, not June 20, 2004. I was so angry after reading this that I pressed the wrong key :-(
This is just the shot across the bow. When Senator Clit-non comes to power the Hillarization of America will commence in earnest....
Robert Mugabe would be proud.
Here we go, folks!
This is the "sustainable development" program coming soon to your community all across the nation!
"Stakeholders", aka "Bambi Lovers" are alleging that they have a "stake" in how you use your land and live your lives because they have a "stake" in their right to experience the ineffable pleasure of watching deer girdling the trees in your front yard.
And how will they ever do that unless they can force you to maintain a "deer-friendly" environment. They are partial to cougar and bear, too....
This is communism, pure and simple. These plunderers must be pretty sure they have the courts in their pockets or they wouldn't have the nerve to try to pull this off.
sounds bad.... but in LA county, the new development limits
being put before Co Sups will be so restrictive that one owner or 41 acres will be limited to building on a total of 3 ! which is probably worse than the 65/10 math.
also no building on any ridgeline such that your roof can be seen from public roads! the UN's Agenda 21 rules America already!! Kiss your private property goodbye...
This is a taking, the King Count WILL have to pay for the 90% they take. There is a US Supreme Court case from the reagan era right on point.
In that case a country tried to control the development of beachfront property by creating such control regulations. It was deemed a taking.
What this is reeeeealy about is the county commissioners are going to be selling the variences to consolodate their power.
If environmentalists want to preserve land in its natural state, they need to buy their own!
It's truly amazing what liberals will do with other peoples' money and property.
We had a real tree hugger sitting in an oak tree that was on the property of a large developer here in So. Cal. The developer needed to take the tree down to improve the road through his housing tract. This was the last giant oak tree in the area, so the creep sat in the tree, got all the local loudmouth pretenders of concern media to cover it, and ended up costing the owner million$ to move the tree. All the while, these creepy environmentalists didn't like that either, said it still might kill the tree.
Personally, I would give the guy 10 minutes to get out of the tree, then begin cutting it down, with or without the garbage sitting in it. And that would be because I was using constraint in not shooting him out of the tree!
Read my tagline.
YES, They do dumb*ss! Communities have no rights, only individuals do.
They would use the force of government to change how others use their own property- not only infringing upon their rights as property holders, but often times causing them considerable financial losses as well- all so they can have something "pretty" to look at when they are driving from their dense, trendy, urban neighborhood to a dense, trendy, urban neighborhood in some other city.
which is why the french pushed to redefine "democracy" from one person one vote to one entity one vote in the EU constitution.. IOW giving goverment as an entitily a distict "right" rather than seeing it as a group of people comming together.
This is more sustainable development. What people (envirowacko fools) don't realize. Eventually a BIG BIG deveopler comes in buys ALL devalued land and then gets variences 100 times worse than anything the individual owners would have done.
As for buying one tiny piece, it gets condemned and some other parcels substitutied for the "raw land".
These power mad socialist still need to be re-elected to their seats.
The guy pushing it is looking to be Governor, he has plausible deniability with the eco wackos to saw he tried but, could not be done.
Most certainly if it ever does pass, it will never make it pass the courts in it's present form
I have a house there in King, but mine is in the city limits. This is only anti country.
(((ping)))
LANDGRABBERS
The '60s generation is one big loony bin.
scorched earth policy comes to mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.