Herschel Sparks, et al v Douglas County :: 127 Wn2d 901
Category: Land Use and Property Rights
The issue being decided was whether requiring dedications of rights-of-way for road improvements as a condition for approving a short plat was arbitrary and capricious and constitutes an unconditional taking of property. The Superior Court said that it was not. The Appellate Court reversed that in favor of the property owners, but the Supreme Court reinstated the decision of the Superior Court, taking the property away from the people.
The Supreme Court restated that the federal and State constitutions require just compensation from the civil government for all takings of private property. However, they dodge this provision “where conveyance of a property right is required as a condition for issuance of a land permit.”
What the majority ignores, in this case, is that the County already planned to improve one of the roads and was exacting the land from the owner in advance. As Judge Alexander pointed out in his dissent, “Had [the property owners] delayed submitting their application . . .until after the County was able to carry out its roadway improvement plan, the County, presumably, would have been required to obtain the necessary frontage by negotiation or by invoking its power of eminent domain.”
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Alexander, Gerry | |
| pass | Durham, Barbara | |
| pass | Graettinger, James | |
| pass | Groen, John M | |
| pass | Madsen, Barbara | |
| pass | Munson, Ray | |
| pass | Thompson, Philip | |
| fail | Bridges, John | |
| fail | Clem, Steven | |
| fail | Dolliver, James | |
| fail | Guy, Richard | |
| fail | Johnson, Charles | |
| fail | Krider, James | |
| fail | Silvernale, Marya | |
| fail | Smith, Charles | |
| fail | Sweeney, Dennis | |
| fail | Talmadge, Phil | |
| fail | Utter, Robert |