Washington must resist the lure of Measure 37

The above blog title refers to a don't miss column in this morning's Sunday Seattle Times, written by Joseph W. Tovar, a city management and planning consultant who presently serves as director of special projects at the University of Washington's Northwest Center for Livable Communities.

Tovar writes about the peril of adopting a law similar to Measure 37:

Proposed laws such as Measure 37 are not needed to assure protection from "unconstitutional takings" because the Fifth Amendment already does that. What such state laws really aim to achieve is a dramatic lowering of the bar for when compensation must be paid. Rather than require payment only in situations when no reasonable economic use remains, such measures would instead require that government pay in all instances when any "reduction in value" occurs.

The number of instances in which zoning restrictions may result in some, but not all, reduction in value is astronomical. Strip malls or casinos would be more profitable for certain property owners than homes in many residentially zoned neighborhoods. Farmlands would have greater market value as subdivisions or industrial parks. Flood plains are attractive locations for car dealerships and truck stops. Building-height caps, billboard bans or construction setbacks from salmon-bearing streams would also "reduce the value" of properties when compared with the absence of such restrictions.

Although the language of Measure 37 states "government shall pay," in reality this means "taxpayers shall pay." In view of the scarcity of tax dollars for needed roads, parks, police, firefighters and libraries, laws such as Measure 37 present communities with a Hobson's choice. As is playing out now in Oregon, cash-strapped local governments would waive enforcement of regulations against claimants — regulations that would continue to apply to everyone else.

Tovar's column offers a history lesson and a warning. It also speculates on what the likelihood of a similar proposal in Washington State, and the ominious sign of a deceptive campaign in Oregon:

There was a startling disconnect between Oregonians' support for Measure 37 and their continuing strong support for their state's growth law. They did not grasp that Measure 37 essentially gutted local governments' ability to regulate land use in a predictable, fair and effective way. As the compensation claims continue to roll into city halls and county courthouses, waivers will be issued and the consequences of the voters' disconnect will become all too apparent.

The whole thing is worth reading. It's a brilliantly-worded commentary on the danger that our state faces from a similar attempt to subvert and destroy the Growth Management Act. "Property rights" advocates are good at making a lot of noise, but their interests lie in being able to do whatever they like. It is a mistake to listen to those kind of voices.

We must think instead of our communities, our region, and our future. Six million people live in Washington. Our state grows denser every day. We cannot afford to go backwards - we must move forwards. Any effort to install a law like Measure 37 must be resoundingly defeated.