I-933: a pig without lip gloss

We're so glad that talk radio is stepping up to air debate on I-933, the regressive property rights proposal carpet-bagged into the state by a sinister group of New York rich guys and an insurance company who couldn't care less about the farmers they've duped into speaking for them.

We didn't hear the Dori Monson debate Wednesday, but we did catch Bryan Suits (KVI m-f, 3-6p) pretending to be fair last week. He had on Aaron Toso of the anti-933 campaign who was there to balance pro-933's John Stuthmiller who'd been on earlier in the week.

Toso twirled around like Jackie Chan fighting Suits and a gang of hai! karate Republican callers who attacked him from every side.

He did pretty well, leaving with no broken bones, but after he left the air, just to knock it back out of balance, former County Councilmann Steve Hammond, who works for the I-933 campaign, conveniently called in and had the last word, countering in a systematic, organized manner, every Toso argument.

(Just another right-wing, weekday talk radio travesty of democracy).

This initiative is dangerous.

Even the business community, usually a hotbed of small-government, and less-regulation has been against this. Read our fair and balanced article about the measure in the new issue of Washington CEO magazine.

We wrote fair and balanced in that piece, (they make us) but after actually reading the damn initiative and talking to real people both here and in Oregon, we jelled-up staunchly against it.

If Washingtonians can't learn from the costly mess in Oregon caused by their similar people-powered Measure 37, we deserve a slaughterhouse in our neighborhood.

I-933 is called "Measure 37 on steroids" because it's more aggressive, farther reaching, and less specific than M-37. The Tacoma Tribune: 

I-933’s “easy solution” instead amounts to a nuclear strike on the power of state and local government to regulate, period, retroactive to Jan. 1, 1996. All potentially profit-limiting restrictions on property – any property, not just land – enacted since that date would trigger the requirement that the owners be paid or the restriction waived on demand.

Compensation would require billions of dollars cities, counties and state agencies don’t have, so either existing services would have to be cut to make the payments or the rules dropped.

The Washington Farm Bureau is the local sponsor of the measure for the Americans For Limited Government, a libertarian group chaired by New York business entrepreneur, real estate developer, and conservative activist Howard S. Rich. They have sponsored, and funded similar efforts in Arizona, California, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, Missouri, Nevada, and Oklahoma.

(The Farm Bureau is actually an insurance company dressed in baseball caps and shit-kickers to make them look like a farm advocates like the Grange. Their real agenda, however, is selling insurance and pushing right-wing legislation that benefits their special interests).

Real farmers who want to stay in farming are not supporting this. Skagit County farmers are already feeling pressure from developers. Mt. Vernon berry farmer Steve Sakuma told us, "Speculation in land values that might happen if I-933 passes could give some families huge windfalls, but it would make it difficult to continue farming."I'm afraid farming will not be able to compete economically against other industries that require land."

He wrote in the Skagit Valley Herald why Oregon's experience is scaring him: "Ninety percent of the claims have resulted in waiver of enforcement because the fiscal burden is so high. Unable to pay, local governments have been forced to approve large, rural subdivisions in the middle of orchards and resort complexes next to world-renowned vineyards."

AFLG put $200,000 as seed in the I-933 war chest, enabling initiative sponsors to hire signature-gatherers and win the proposed legislation a place on November’s ballot.

The pro-campaign is hurting now for money, but they're counting on your voters laziness to not read further than the reasonable-sounding ballot title.

Toso says that polling shows that once people read a little further into the issue, (like here, or here, or here) they reject I-933.   

Comments

[Rich]

Starting with 695 I am begining to think that we should reform the initiative process. It is too eazy for groups with the big bucks to get things on the ballot. They only have to be sucessful once. Kind of like political terrorist.

[joanie]

I'm grateful for some of these links because I've tried to watch quite a few of the debates and, frankly, the 933 spokesmen are pretty good. I have been finding myself on the fence at times even though my instinct tells me no.

I watched a community meeting at Camp River Ranch where a lot politicians gathered to hear from community residents and several tree farmers. These people had been on their land a long, long time (some of them) and the taxes they were paying were pretty high yet usage was diminished.

I can't tell what is true anymore from the spin and I have to say that we need to find a fairer tax than forcing people to sell homes - whether they be rural acreage or city houses - just cause people get old.

And I am totally for growth management and land-use lawes. Just hard to know the truth here. Also, while I hear about the expense 933 will add . . . the proponents say that it has been way oversold and that Oregon's isn't nearly what people say. More like $3M rather than $30M or more. And sometimes these County bean counters can be hard to work with. I heard some horror stories about some of the enforcement on the Counties side of ridiculous infractions. If all County employees could be trusted to be fair and wise, some of this would have gone away.

I want everyone to win here to the extent possible.

[Walter Cooper]

Rich...

I-933 is a win-win proposition for Washington State...

It’s kind of scary to think the government can legally take the roof out from over your head.

Don’t let them.

Join me in voting yes on I-933!!

[cinco]

you are a robot, Walter. open your eyes, read the material.

[Rich]

He can't be a robot he typed in the letters in corectly

[TJ]

Brian in Lacey - that was beautiful...

Thank the gods I have tissues handy

[Fremont]

Aw, shucks, Bin Lacey, I thought Styble had warped your soul...glad to see your heart bleeds. Poetry, pure poetry...

[spitintheocean]

You're correct Rich , in my case , we have had nearly 2 of our five acres of R-2 , residential "seized" from us , we still get to pay the taxes on the land , we are required to have a $500.00 permit even if we have no plans to develop and the permit requires a Society of National Arborists approved survey of the property , to the tune of $10,000 .
Opponents speak of comunity values , more like they are shifting the burden on small timer's that really can't afford the current process . If a line in the sand is not drawn , these type of takings are going to continue , not decrease .
I-933 will help small landowners stop current municipal land rush . It will help make the GMU accountable . I'm VOTING FOR I-933 , IT'S ONLY FAIR .

[Walter Cooper]

Spit In The Ocean has it right....

What’s yours IS yours, don’t let the government tell you otherwise.

Read up on the facts...

http://yeson933.com/

Vote yes on Initiative 933

[lukobe]

933 is too broad. I don't think it's even possible for the initiative to authorize governments to waive regulations. That would probably require a constitutional amendment. If 933 passes I am sure it will be struck down by the courts or repealed by the legislature in due course.

[KVI Bryan]

I thought I made it fairly clear that I think 933 is too broad....
And tell me again all about "fairness."

[KVI Bryan]

I DO, however, wholeheartedly agree with the motives behind 933.

[lukobe]

Me too. Kelo vs. New London really pissed me off...

[joanie]

Sorry for the poor spelling this AM; i was in a hurry - as usual. :)