A Victory for Freedom

Back in 2006, opponents of I-933, the Property Fairness Initiative, pooh-poohed the concerns of citizens who felt that government was exercising regulatory takings of their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution through acts such as Critical Areas Ordinances and the Growth Management Act.

Today, the Washington State Court of Appeals has vindicated supporters of I-933. The onerous King County Critical Areas Ordinance that requires rural landowners to keep half of their property covered with vegetation has been struck down. The court held that any such ordinance must be tied to the impact of a specific, proposed development.

Now, the court needs to strike down the unfair and expensive Growth Management Act for the same reason.

Quote of the Day II

The existence of private property rights and the ability to do things with your land as you see fit is often not fully appreciated. The United States of America would not be the county it is without these rights. John Adams, one of the founding fathers of our country, said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." (I bet John Adams told some really good I-remember-when stories.)

Lots of people want to tell you what you can do with property they do not own. The challenge is to allow development of private property in ways that provide profit to the landowner and facility to the community. It is often difficult to find the middle ground, and it is never possible to make everyone completely happy. If the community is not alert, small groups of vocal and active people can be very obstructive and do great harm to the future of the community.

- Steve Busch, "The ever-changing face of the Palouse," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, May 28, 2008

Moscowans should be glad that Steve and other individuals with common sense founded the Greater Moscow Alliance and saved the city from the clutches of those "small groups of vocal and active people."

Quote of the Day

[University of Idaho biology graduate student Chris Looney] added the rush to have the [giant Palouse earth]worm listed as an endangered species was brought on by fear of urban sprawl striking the Palouse.

If groups like the Palouse Prairie Foundation and other groups would have used less aggressive tactics, especially in light of slow growth trends, they may have been able to curry more support from farmers, he added.

- "One percent left: Grad students seek to save Palouse prairie remnants," Whitman County Gazette, May 1, 2008

Looney was part of cross-discipline study of the biological and sociological value of the Palouse Prairie funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation. The results of the study were presented to the Whitman County commissioners last Monday.

At least the truth about the giant Palouse earthworm has come out, and as usual, it has nothing to with science.

Snobler's List

Liberal Moscow gadfly Vera White took a gratuitous swipe at Whitman County in her column in the Daily News last Friday:

A recent posting on V2020 caught the INKster's eye, so she Googled the mentioned Web site to check it out. Earlier this month, The Progressive Farmer magazine released a list of the "Best Places to Live in Rural America." Each year, the rankings name the top-10 rural counties and profile each in the magazine. This year, Kent County, Md., was awarded top honors.

The magazine also listed the top 500 rural counties by region, and the INKster was pleased to learn some of the surrounding counties made the top 100 list in the Western Region.

Nez Perce County ranked No. 11 in Idaho, with Kootenai County No. 23 and Latah County coming in at No. 55. Asotin County in Washington ranked No. 70, but as the V2020 poster noted, "neither Whitman nor Spokane counties cracked the top 100."

As those chamber of commerce types continue to note, "things are lookin' good in the Valley."

So just what is a "Progressive Farmer" you may ask? (as well as why, since "Crime" is a ranking factor, did Latah County with a murder rate last year greater than most large U.S. cities rank as #55, but I digress.)

I read what the magazine had to say about its top rated place to live, Kent County, MD:

By all reasoning, Kent County should be covered with homes, strip malls and "farmettes." But it's not. Not anywhere close. [And Kootenai County is #23 by this standard? Go figure. - tf]

Instead, Kent County is a rare holdout in the sprawl and development in this country that clearly is out of control. Kent County maintains a culture of farming, wildlife, and small towns and villages that are relatively untouched.

For a county to be in our Best Places list, we hold them to the usual standards—good schools, health care, safety and other desirable qualities. But what makes Kent County stand out is its residents' resolve to maintain a solid rural heritage. At the foundation of that effort is farmland preservation, something that started decades ago with foresight, cooperation and some far-sighted planning.

Then it became readily apparent to me. A "Progressive Farmer" must be a wealthy, well-educated escapee from some big city that lusts after open spaces and breathtaking views and is willing to deprive the locals of their progress and property rights in order to keep it. It's just the old elitist, drawbridge mentality.

I'm frankly very happy glad Whitman County didn't make such a snobby list.

Corridor 3-Fer, Part 2

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Pullman, Whitman County look to align zoning codes near airport

Pullman and Whitman County planning officials are working to create consistent rules for what's allowed on land surrounding the area's commercial airport.

Pullman Planning Director Pete Dickinson said the two entities are working to align county and city zoning codes as they pertain to land use and height restrictions around the Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport - restrictions that are intended to ensure safety for planes during takeoff and landing.

The airport was under the county's control until it was annexed into Pullman in the 1980s.

"Our goal is to have a seamless operation between the city and the county when it comes to airport use regulations," Dickinson said. "We need to be on the same page. That's our goal."

Airport Manager Robb Parish said the Federal Aviation Administration requires counties and municipalities to make "appropriate land-use decisions" regarding areas and projects that may impact the airport.

"It is all in the control of Whitman County and Pullman," he said. "I think it really starts with everyone agreeing to protect the airport, then making decisions that implement that."

Whitman County Planner Mark Bordsen said the discussion is driven by the Washington State Department of Transportation's aviation division, which has encouraged municipalities to update zoning codes around airport properties.

He said in addition to discrepancies with Pullman, the county's "archaic" code is in need of an update.

"As best I can tell, it's probably something the feds told the state to tell the county to adopt," he said. "It's a very poorly worded chapter in our zoning code."

Dickinson said the city's interest in the issue stems from the county's allowance of more development in unincorporated areas. City zoning code restricts homes, hospitals, churches and child-care centers - or other places where many people may congregate - from within one mile east or west of the airport runway due to potential noise concerns.

Dickinson said the idea is to restrict the uses entirely so area residents or business owners would not be able to rally together to challenge the airport noise.

"There's a certain expectation that has been created in the county's unincorporated area right now that if you wish to develop your property near the airport, you can," Dickinson said. "But when you allow for residences near the airport, they are going to be bothered by airport noise. You get enough residences, churches, or child-cares together ... it becomes a battle, which we don't want to engage in."

Bordsen has a different opinion. He said Pullman and Washington State University allow for structures to be built closer to the airport than the county would like.

Bordsen also disagrees with some aspects of the city's permitted height requirements in the area. He said the county was given the thumbs up by the FAA to allow structures to be constructed behind natural hills that themselves are in violation of height restrictions.

"The FAA doesn't care, because if the airplane is going to hit something, it's going to hit the highest object," he said.

Dickinson said FAA rules often are left to interpretation, noting the Palouse's topography can pose an issue to the FAA's general restriction on the height of objects, landscaping and structures within a roughly 14,000-foot radius of the airport runway.

Parish said he is grateful the county notifies him when construction applications are submitted for areas near the airport. He reviews them and replies to the county with objections or concerns.

For instance, Parish objected when a cell tower was proposed within a mile of the airport and directly under a flight path. The land use is being investigated by the FAA.

"We really try to be reasonable. I don't want to object to a development if it's reasonable and we think it will be compatible. Frankly, we are eager to see the area develop," he said.

Parish said he sympathizes with the city and county as they try to reach a compromise, and understands the county may be facing pressure to allow rural residents to develop their property while at the same time trying to maintain safe operation of the airport.

"They're trying to get a better understanding of what really works around the airport and what doesn't," he said. "Everybody's trying their best to work through these issues."

Bordsen said he hopes the city and county will be able to find a solution that allows for airport safety and compatible development.

"I'm hoping it's going to be easy, but I don't know," he said. "It's going to be a tough issue."

Finally, a Government Subsidy Jim Fisher Likes

You remember liberal-tarian Lewiston Tribune columnist Jim Fisher takes a dim view of the government building a water and sewer system:

If Hawkins were doing what other developers have done in paying the cost of its own development, county revenues from sales and property taxes on the new mall would begin flowing immediately into county coffers.

But in today's column, Fisher is filled with praise for Whitman County for spending $42,795 of the taxpayer's money to help purchase and operate a wood chipper that will "travel the county grinding the wood waste that otherwise might be burned" and encouraging towns to set up composting facilities. He contrasts this with "backwards" Asotin County, that still foolishly expects property owners to either pony up themselves for a chipper or *gasp* burn their brush.

My question is, what if Hakwins uses the wood chipper when they clear off their property to build?