Washington State’s Initiative 933 on the Nov 7, 2006 ballot is a snake in the grass. It is deceptive in its intent, which when examined closer, is far beyond the message its supporters are campaigning on. And this criticism is not even related to their deceptive yard signs with false slogans of “Save our Farms” and “Save our Open Space” meant to confuse voters by using the message of their opponents.
No it seems that some people, like out of state New York real estate developer Howard Rich, hate our elected citizen government system so much that they will go to any length to destroy it. Rich is an avowed Libertarian who has so far dumped over $360,000 into Washington State to try to get us to never pass any more laws, rules and regulations affecting not just real estate but any form of private property. He has funded over one third of the I-933 campaign and he doesn’t even live here.
As Howard Rich himself says, initiatives like I-933 bypassing the legislature is a good thing and will have a “very far reaching” impact on future regulatory actions. That is true because if I-933 passes it means that all levels of government will be faced with either waiving or paying to enforce any new laws, rules or regulations that affects someone’s personal property as well as real property(real estate).
The vote on Initiative 933 is significant nationally because I-933 represents a radical expansion of the original campaign over land use and environmental laws affecting real property that was supposedly the issue in Oregon’s Measure 37.
Why is this? The answer lies in the fact that the initiative was deliberately written to cover both personal property and real estate. The sponsors say they intended it this way. Dan Wood running the Farm Bureau’s effort to pass I-933 said so himself.
This expansion of the initiative to cover both real and personal property is what makes the initiative extreme – it talks about all “private property” not just real estate.
Initiative 933 ballot title:
Measure 933 concerns government regulation of private property. This measure would require compensation when government regulation damages the use or value of private property, would forbid regulations that prohibit existing legal uses of private property and would provide exceptions or payments. Should this measure be enacted into law?
Initiative 933 definition:
“Private property” includes all real and personal property interests protected by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 16 of the Washington Constitution owned by a nongovernmental entity, including, but not limited to, any interest in land, buildings, crops, livestock, and mineral and water rights.
Foster Pepper lawyer Hugh Spitzer points out in his analysis that I-933 covers many other issues not even being currently debated because of this expansion of property to include both real and personal property in the definition section. I-933 is written to cover all property not just real estate;
As such Hugh Spitzer notes:
“Claims for public compensation would likely include demands for payments as a result of:
– Regulations governing the insurance, securities and health care industries;Regulations governing professions (such as plumbing, cosmetology, and physical therapy);
– Rules controlling who is qualified to carry out other tasks that require specialized training and experience, such as installing fire sprinkler systems or operating sex offender treatment facilities; and
– Regulations governing wild and domestic animals, livestock, food crops,fertilizers, pesticides, drugs and motor vehicles “
These are just a few examples but they point out why you should vote No on Initiative 933. It is a deceptive initiative that goes far beyond what many of its sponsors say it covers.
And under I-933 anyone can bring a legal suit at no cost regardless of the outcome of the case. Taxpayers pay all expenses of both sides in any court case regarding I-933. The challenger has nothing to lose. It’s a good way to get cash strapped governments to quickly cave in to anyone challenging a new law, rule or regulation which in any way affects personal and real property.
Just as the opponents of I-933 say IT GOES TOO FAR. Vote no on Initiative 933.
addendum:
from Wikipedia:
Property designates those real or intellectual goods that are commonly recognized as being the rightful possessions of a person or group. A right of ownership is associated with property that establishes the good as being “one’s own thing” in relation to other individuals or groups, assuring the owner the right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she sees fit. ….Private property is that which belongs to an individual or a group of individuals (often in the form of individual tradable shares); public property is that which belongs to a whole community collectively or a State.
from Wikipedia:
Real property is a legal term encompassing real estate and ownership interests in real estate (immovable property). It is a type of property differentiated from personal property.
Oregon’s Measure 37 specifically refers only to “private real property” (1) “If a public entity enacts or enforces a new land use regulation or enforces a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective date of this amendment that restricts the use of private real property or any interest therein and has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein, then the owner of the property shall be paid just compensation. “
