Samuels Furniture v Ecology :: 147 Wn2d 440
Category: Land Use and Property Rights
Samuel’s Furniture (Samuel’s) submitted applications for permits for the expansion of their business in August 1998. The City of Ferndale (City), using approved Shoreline Master Program (SMP) maps determined that a shoreline permit was not necessary for the proposed project. Samuel’s did submit a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist to both the City and Department of Ecology (Ecology). Ecology contacted the City almost a full year later only “after learning about the project from a concerned citizen” (whiner). After meeting with Ecology, the City issued a stop work order. Subsequently, the stop work was revoked by the City four days later after determining once again the project was not within the shoreline jurisdiction. Ecology did not appeal the decision of the City to revoke the stop work order, nonetheless, it did not stop its harassment of Samuel’s.
The lower court ruled in favor of the property owners. The Appellate court ruled in favor of the over-reaching regulators. The Supreme Court determined that Ecology, on all occasions failed to file timely notices and/or appeals and they rebuked the mindset of regulators who believe they can ignore administrative finality and interfere with any project at any time. The majority opinion affirmed “this state’s [sic] strong policy favoring administrative finality in land use decisions . . . concluding that a body of cogent, workable rules upon which regulators and landowners alike can rely is essential to resolving land use regulation disputes. . . If there were not finality, no owner of land would ever be safe in proceeding with development of his property” [at 458, sub-quotes and cites omitted]
Justice Owens wrote the dissenting opinion with the premise being the legislature intended to allow the agency to write the rules as they go (or have the courts to do it for them) -- only in this way could they have the power to accomplish their ultimate good. The Bible talks about the wisdom of counting the cost before entering into a project. However, if the cost can never be determined because some loose regulator has the authority to increase that cost at whim – or even to terminate the project after half the costs are expended, it would be unwise to enter into any building or expansion project and that being so, it would undermine the economy of the individual, city, state and nation.
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Bridge, Bobbe | |
| pass | Chambers, Tom | |
| pass | Denke, Kurt A | |
| pass | Ford, Timothy D | |
| pass | Ireland, Faith | |
| pass | Mura, Steven J | |
| pass | Overstreet, Greg | |
| pass | Sanders, Richard | |
| pass | Smith, Charles | |
| pass | Wolf, Heather A | |
| fail | Alexander, Gerry | |
| fail | Coleman, H Joseph | |
| fail | Johnson, Charles | |
| fail | Kennedy, Faye | |
| fail | Madsen, Barbara | |
| fail | Morrill, Thomas C | |
| fail | Owens, Susan | |
| fail | Webster, Walter | |
| fail | Young, Thomas J |