King County v Hearings Board :: 142 Wn2d 543
Category: Land Use and Property Rights
Soccer moms aren’t going to like this one. The high court has ruled that converting unused farmland into ball fields, even temporarily, is a violation of the Growth Management Act (GMA).
The lone dissenter in this case, Justice Johnson, laments the loss of a reasonable use of unused farmland. That unused agricultural property must either be farmed or remain fallow rather than be used for soccer and baseball fields “makes no sense.” [At 565]. This is one more consequence of the GMA.
Most every reader of the Tandem Vincitur knows I am an ardent adversary to the GMA. I would love to takes sides with Charles Johnson in his dissent but I cannot. Accordingly, I would like to reverse the pass/fail listings of every judge in this case, but I cannot. The issue before this court is not the constitutional authority of the GMA.
The issue is, in fact, the statutory superiority of the GMA over the county’s ability to make amendments to its comprehensive plan and zoning codes. Although the majority contends, “[t]he county has broad discretion to develop a comprehensive plan and development regulations that are suited to its local circumstances,” [at 561] it ruled that those powers are, in fact, limited. Which is true because that is what the law says!
Nonetheless, I would like the majority to take note they have re?cemented by precedent a false premise for the enactment of the GMA. They began the BACKGROUND issues quoting Alan Copsey. “The Growth Management Act . . . was enacted in 1990 and 1991 ‘in response to public concerns about rapid population growth and increasing development pressures in the state [sic], especially in the Puget Sound region.’” [At 546, cite omitted]. The truth is this issue was placed before the people in Initiative 547. This initiative, which required “cities and counties to adopt comprehensive land use plans conforming to the state’s growth and environmental goals. . . and impose fees and taxes on development activities . . .” [Init 547, Ballot Summary] was overwhelmingly defeated in the 1990 general election. The GMA was enacted in response to its defeat at the ballot box. Win or lose, the Democrats and socialists always believe they have a mandate for their issues.
Maybe after the people realize the GMA is responsible for over twenty-five percent of their mortgage, which they are paying on for thirty years (an average of $126,000 per household), they might wake up and force the issue to a constitutional test. Nonetheless, as long as we are only talking about $350 per month and we all have good paying jobs, we’ll keep fighting for more soccer fields.
We are not rating the attorneys in this case.
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Alexander, Gerry | |
| pass | Bridge, Bobbe | |
| pass | Guy, Richard | |
| pass | Ireland, Faith | |
| pass | Madsen, Barbara | |
| pass | Sanders, Richard | |
| pass | Smith, Charles | |
| pass | Talmadge, Phil | |
| fail | Armstrong, Sharon | |
| fail | Johnson, Charles |