Fire Protection District v City of Moses Lake :: 145 Wn2d 702
Category: Land Use and Property Rights
In two separate cases, fire protection districts and affected property owners challenged the validity of a city’s annexation of county territory using the petition method of annexation (rather than direct vote by resident voters).
The City of Moses Lake upon proper petition to annex the Wheeler Corridor area adjacent to the city, and part of the city’s Urban Growth Area, held public hearings and then approved the annexation. Two owners (voters in the Wheeler Corridor area) together with the Grant County Fire Protection District #5, filed an application for review contesting the validity of the annexation proceedings and challenging the constitutionality of the petition method of annexation. The trial court granted judgment in favor of the city, ruling that none of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the validity and finding the petition method of annexation to be constitutional.
The City of Yakima also used the petition method to annex an area included in the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan. The Washington State Boundary Review Board reviewed the proposed annexation. The proposal would have left an “Island” of unincorporated area within Yakima’s territory. So the proposal was modified to include the “Island.” The Boundary Review Board approved the modified proposal. An opinion was requested from the Attorney General who upheld the procedure. Once again, two owners and Yakima County Fire Protection District #12 filed suit seeking a declaration that the petition method be unconstitutional. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the city and affirmed the petition method of annexation was constitutional.
On appeal, these two cases were consolidated under the Supreme Court proceedings. The Supreme Court accepted review because they felt it was of substantial public importance and the form of government under which an area falls necessarily affects commerce and finance.
The Supreme Court, after receiving much testimony from each side, concluded the petition method of annexation offers privileges to a favored minority [taxpaying land owners] and is therefore unconstitutional as a violation of the privileges and immunities clause article 1 section 12 of the Washington State Constitution. The Court reversed the judgments of the trial courts and granted judgments in favor of the plaintiffs.
With this ruling, the high court turned 50 years of law and administrative practice on its ear. This, in the name of equality (socialism) and that equality was to remove the rights of the property owners to determine their civil jurisdiction and grant that right to voters who have no interest in the property whatsoever.
[Ed. note – This Court later granted motions for reconsideration and consolidated the two cases with City of Snoqualmie v. Washington State Boundary Review Board, 150 Wn2d 791. Upon disposition of this combined case, the Supreme Court reversed its previous ruling that the petition method of annexation (in use for over fifty years) was, after all, constitutional. Although many in the majority continued to stumble over the result being the landowners are somehow afforded “an impermissible privilege” over the rest of the voters. It is almost humorous to read the twisted dictum they write in order to walk their way back to the law with any resemblance of dignity. Justice Sanders sets the record straight in his concurring opinion where he points out the major problem with the original case and their tortured walk back to law in this case is their confusion of the Washington State Constitution’s privileges and immunities clause (art. 1, sec. 12) with the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. If they would have listened to Sanders’ reasoning in the first case, they could have saved themselves a reversal and a whole lot of paper expended trying to save face.]
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | DeJulio, P Stephen | |
| pass | Hotchkiss, John | |
| pass | Johnson, Charles | |
| pass | Lust, James J | |
| pass | Madsen, Barbara | |
| pass | Paolella, Raymond L | |
| pass | Peterson, Lawrence A | |
| pass | Sanders, Richard | |
| pass | Thomas, Elizabeth | |
| pass | Whitaker, James W | |
| pass | Wyman, Michael | |
| pass | Wynn, Roger D | |
| fail | Alexander, Gerry | |
| fail | Bridge, Bobbe | |
| fail | Chambers, Tom | |
| fail | Collins, William B | |
| fail | Gregoire, Christine | |
| fail | Ireland, Faith | |
| fail | Owens, Susan | |
| fail | Pierce, Narda | |
| fail | Smith, Charles | |
| fail | Snure, Clark B | |
| fail | Snure, Brian K |