Central Planning

July 26th, 2010

Hippodamus of Miletus was a Greek architect of the 5th century BC. He was the first practitioner of urban central planning. His first project was the city of Miletus, an ancient city on the western coast of Anatolia (in what is now the Aydin Province of Turkey), near the mouth of the Maeander River. The site was inhabited since the Bronze Age. It is first mentioned in Hittite records as Millawanda. In the time of Hittite king Mursili II (ca. 1320 BC), Millawanda became a bridgehead for the expansion of the Mycenean Greeks in Asia Minor. Miletus was an important center of philosophy and science, producing such men as Thales (who Aristotle called the founder of natural philosophy), Anaximander and Anaximenes. It was where Hecataeus invented geography. It was destroyed by the Persians in 494 BCE, after they had defeated the navy of the Ionian Greeks at Lade. Miletus was rebuilt on a promontory, north of the old town. The gridiron plan of the new town, designed by the Hippodamus, became the standard for urban planning. One photograph that accompanies this article shows a model of the rebuilt city; the other shows how it looks now.

A cynic might say that the two photos are proof that good central planners can indeed reverse growth and recreate functioning wetlands.

Most central planners would have you think that their profession was recently created and has newly invented “smart growth” and “sustainable development” and “livable cities.” The truth is that the problems that they would like you to think that only they can fix are the results of previous plans by central planners.

They wring their hands and beat their breasts because those who live in suburbia must drive long distances to work, shop, recreate, and worship. Do they think we are so dumb that we do not know it was the zoning forced by central planners and their political supporters that prevented all those types of use in suburbia? Perhaps it is they who are too dumb to be in charge of the current “smart growth” experiment that will cause all the problems for the next generation of central planners.

King County DDES is systematically removing all uses except housing and hobby farming (mostly horses) in the RA zones of rural King County and calling it growth management. King County staff routinely call the RA zones “residential area,” not “rural agricultural.” Homes on five-acre lots (the RA zone minimum) where people sleep and then commute to their job in the city is the definition of suburban sprawl. Rural to me (born in South Dakota) is where you can live and work on the same ground. If you don’t want an “economy” sullying where you sleep, buy a home in a subdivision with strong covenants instead of moving to the country and trying to change your neighbors uses.

Smart growth proponents cry endlessly about expensive infrastructure outside the Urban Growth Line while forcing the sales tax dollars of rural residents into the cities so they can afford their infrastructure. Meanwhile residents of unincorporated King County pay a property tax rate of 14.23585 compared to Kirkland at 9.99742 or Mercer Island at 8.60698 or Medina at 7.91028 or even Seattle at 12.18121.

The following quote is from an article “Smart Growth, Open Space & Farm Land” by Smart Growth America, a coalition of major Smart Growth organizations. “Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies conducted in more than 83 communities show that owners of farm, forest and open lands pay more in local tax revenues than it costs local government to provide services to their properties. Residential land uses, in contrast, are a net drain on municipal coffers: It costs local governments more to provide services to homeowners than residential landowners pay in property taxes.”

It turns out that “saving farms and forests” is just a Machiavellian scheme to reduce the taxes of city folks. We couldn’t possibly provide rural folks some of the services for which they are taxed!

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Growth Management, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Taking, Nuisance, or Theft?

April 7th, 2010

I originally wrote this during the heat of debate over the King County CAO amendments. It is still applicable as the rest of the state bears the brunt of their own CAOs and Shoreline Master Plans.

There are two broad principals of law in the United States under which government may take or restrict the use of private property. Government may take private property for public benefit but must, in turn, compensate the owner of the property for its value. Government may also take or restrict the use of property via its police powers to regulate nuisances.

Just as a property owner possesses rights to use his property, he also holds rights to prevent others from using their land in a manner that harms him or his property. “Nuisance” describes a situation in which one landowner is using his property in a way that unreasonably limits the use of his neighbor’s land or directly harms his neighbor. A “private nuisance” interferes with a relatively small number of people in their use of land. For example, if one neighbor plays her radio very loudly, especially during times that others sleep, that may constitute a private nuisance. A “public nuisance” causes distress to a large number of persons (an entire neighborhood or community) in the use of their land. For example, a cement factory, which discharges large amounts of smoke and dust, may amount to a public nuisance. Under the police power a court of equity with proper legislative authorization can assume jurisdiction to abate a nuisance.

It is difficult to determine which of these two concepts is being employed in these proposed ordinances. On one hand, we are told that “Best Available Science” says we must put these restrictions in place for the public benefits of cleaner water and improved habitat for wildlife. We are told we must limit sprawl to  reduce the costs of providing services in the rural areas. If a court agrees that those are worthwhile public benefits, then government is required to compensate the owners. We would never allow government to simply take any other type of property (medicine, clothing, bricks and mortar) because it was to be used for some public benefit. Why do we even think of it when talking about even more valuable land uses?

On the other hand, can we really call this a preemptive injunction against “public  nuisance” use of rural properties? Remember that nuisance requires that one neighbor’s use of her property must interfere unreasonably with a neighbor’s use of her property or directly harm her. The ordinances as written would have us believe that rural landowners’ use of more than 35% of their property interferes with the reasonable use of their properties by urban landowners. Using that logic, if anyone has a legitimate action based on their neighbors’ overuse of property, it is the rural property owners. Perhaps the science being touted as “Best Available” would best be used to enjoin urban property owners from the continued destruction of our environment by overclearing.

Mixing these two separate legal concepts may seem to give the urban members of the King County Council the opportunity to obtain benefits for their urban constituents without those constituents having to pay anything, but that is not the case. Doing so is neither legal nor moral. It is simply theft, and serves only to broaden the conflict between the urban and rural residents of King County.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

What the Heck is a Distractor?

March 31st, 2010

Anyone who has ever taken a multiple-choice exam has experience with distractors. Every question has one or more answers that look good, appear to be logical and just feel right. But they are wrong. Students that don’t really understand the question will choose them every time. Only those with in-depth knowledge of the subject can resist them and choose the correct answer. The teacher is thus able to minimize the chance that students will guess the correct answer.
Politicians have traditionally been the grand masters of using distractors. They say one thing but do another while we are distracted by their rhetoric. Many people erroneously attribute the Law of Unintended Consequences to laws that really work just as intended but were promoted using good distractors thus leading people to think the distractor was actually signed into law. Even politicians with honorable intentions but slow reading skills get hoodwinked into voting for distractors because they don’t read what they are voting for.
The radical environmentalists are giving the politicians a run for their money though. (Yes, I know it is really our money!) They have a whole litany of distractors that they have inculcated into our brains. They range from little green lies to great green whoppers but they are so well crafted and repeated so often that most folks treat them as proven theories. Meanwhile, the real agendas slide in the back door on the coattails of sympathetic or gullible politicians. Ever heard of the “Salmon Recovery Plan?” It makes Bill Clinton’s firing of a couple cruise missiles at an aspirin factory to get us to forget about Monica—what the heck was her name—pale in comparison. We don’t even think about the billions of dollars subsidizing commercial salmon fishing.
If you want to know what is really going on in our world, get better at spotting and ignoring distractors. They are everywhere.

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Buffer, Buffer, Who gets the Buffer?

March 28th, 2010

As you listen to your favorite practitioner of the Great Green Lie extol the virtues of ever larger buffers on your 5 or 10 or 15 acres, please keep the following photos in mind. The buffer on the stream in unincorporated King County is 300 feet from the edge of the wetland that gets bigger every year.

Salmon bearing stream in Unincorporated King County – May Creek

Best Salmon Bearing Stream in Bellevue – Kelsey Creek

Salmon bearing stream in Renton – Honey Creek

It runs in a pipe under the Albertson’s parking lot!

For the supposed good of all, rural folks are forced to minimize their density, uses, and value while the urban folks are forced to maximize their density, uses, and value to the displeasure of both. The constitution says that property taken for the use of all has to be paid for. Even the US Supreme Court agreed in Kelo that property taken and given to private interests has to be paid for. Environmental restrictions applied to those who have taken the best care of their environment while those who have turned their environment into concrete get a bye is simple theft—not “Smart Growth.”

If we all had to pay for Gang Green’s foolishness, taxpayers might demand a constructive prioritization of projects instead of just making a rural minority pay the costs so that they can feel all warm and fuzzy while destroying where they live.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Amnesty

March 28th, 2010

King County’s Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) has had a long-standing marketing program known unofficially as “1-800 Turn in Your Neighbor.” It has been a very effective way to bring in the funds necessary to make payroll each month, since DDES must finance its operations through fees and fines rather than tax dollars. They also periodically run a marketing program designed to get folks to turn in themselves. It is called “Amnesty.”

A quick look at the law.com dictionary shows the following definition:

Amnesty – n. a blanket abolition of an offense by the government, with the legal result that those charged or convicted have the charge or conviction wiped out.

The DDES amnesty falls rather short of the definition. If you turn yourself in, the fees you pay will be half what you will pay if your neighbor turns you in. It’s a bureaucracy’s idea of a half-price sale. I think it would be entirely appropriate for DDES to have a real amnesty for property owners. Currently, property owners are held liable for any improvements done to their property without the appropriate fees paid to DDES even if those improvements were by previous owners. Over the years, DDES and its predecessor BALD, have done a pathetic job of catching those doing unpermitted work. Concurrently, those department’s ineptitude has caused long lead times and high costs to get official permission which has led many to not bother asking for that permission. Meanwhile, DDES has no fiduciary responsibility to property owners whose work they do inspect when they fail to identify life-threatening conditions. They collect fees as though they are professionals but are not held to any professional standard whatever.

I can personally attest to the futility of asking DDES a pre-purchase question such as, “Has the accessory dwelling on the property I am about to purchase been permitted?” The answer was “Yes” before the purchase but “No” four years later. It is outrageous that buyers, who have no way to determine undisclosed problems with DDES, should be held responsible for the sins of previous owners. DDES should be held accountable for not doing their job when the infraction occurred. Some future owner who has done nothing wrong should not pay for their incompetence. Those future owners should be held harmless by King County.

It is time to wipe the slate and start over. Put a real amnesty in place now and forgive all past transgressions. Activity on any property that is causing provable harm to some neighbor can be stopped via the common law courts. Put a system in place at DDES so that future buyers have a guarantee backed by the County that they are not liable if the current owner has not followed the rules after the amnesty date. Allow buyers to sue King County when they discover that work inspected by DDES is not to code and is unsafe. Ratchet down the regulations to a point where permits can be obtained quickly and for low cost. Move most DDES employees to inspections instead of lengthy plan review. Plan review should be the job of engineers and architects who have a fiduciary responsibility to, and can be sued by, property owners for failures of their professional obligations.

Tags: , ,
Posted in King County WA | No Comments »

Individual Control or Collectivist Control?

March 28th, 2010

Many land use issues boil down to the question of who should make the decision as to the most appropriate use for any given property.

Private property rights advocates will usually choose the owner of the property. They believe that the person who owns the property will recognize that their best interest lies in the wise use and conservation of the resources of the property. Property rights advocates recognize that there is a small fraction of property owners who will take a shortsighted approach, pillage the resources and then move on. Humans tend to project their actions onto others. They assume that others will see things similarly to themselves and consequently behave much as they themselves would. Because most property rights advocates manage their properties well, they assume that most other folks will also manage their property wisely. They will agree that society needs to deal with the small percentage whose unwise use of their property adversely impacts their neighbors, but only when the impacts exceed some fairly high bar.

The flip side of private property ownership is collective ownership of property. By projecting their own actions, collectivists assume that individual owners will more often than not take the shortsighted approach of pillaging the property and often cause harm to their neighbors. The solution to that problem is management by committee via a large body of rules and regulations that are applied to all property, or at least the property that isn’t owned by the collective, or the abolition of private property by moving ownership to the collective.

Through some mechanism unknown to me, it is assumed that the collective mind will devise a better use of the property than any individual might. My personal experience is that, while two heads may be better than one, the law of diminishing returns comes into play quickly as the size of the group increases. It doesn’t take a very large collective to prove the truth of the old saying, “Collectively, they couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the directions were on the heel!” Collectively we are able to make much larger mistakes than an individual would. There have been several large collectivist failures in the last century or so that we might want to learn from.

I do find the collectivist attributes projected onto the property rights advocates interesting to contemplate. We thus become “ideologues” and “developers” and “sprawl mongers” and “clear cutters” among other interesting titles used to portray us as bad people because we aren’t collectivists. We certainly have ideas and use our right of speech to convey those ideas to others. I, for one, am certainly grateful for the houses I have lived in over the years that were built by developers. Most property rights advocates will choose a house with some property around it rather than an apartment in a downtown high-rise and not feel that we are destroying the earth by that decision.

I’m unsure what to think of the “clear-cutter” label. During the King County CAO debates Mr. Constantine and Mr. Sims and Mr. Trohimovich kept telling me that according to the new CAO it would be perfectly okay to clearcut my 65% native vegetation set-aside area as long as I acquired a “forest production plan.” Mr. Trohimovich said on radio that clear cutting is what we do out here in the rural areas. So is the label of “clear-cutter” good or bad? What if I don’t want to clear-cut my set-aside, maybe just replace it with an orchard? Prevention of clear-cutting seems to be the primary rationale for preventing most uses of 65% of rural King County. And yet, the spokesmen kept saying it is okay. In hindsight, it was these very spokesmen for the collective that were proposing to violate state law—a larger transgression than the one they were pretending to fix.

We have a prime example of collectivists destroying what an individual had protected for many years on Maury Island. Mr. Kerry Lapine owned, for twelve years, a couple of acres that happened to support a blue heron rookery. The birds had used the property for their rookery before Mr. Lapine purchased it. In fact, it was the largest rookery in Puget Sound with 200 to 300 nests, depending on the year. Mr. Lapine carefully kept people away during nesting and rearing times. He did a good job protecting the
herons. The collectivists who run the Vashon Maury Island Land Trust decided that Mr. Lapine should no longer be the caretaker of the rookery and brought much pressure to bear on Mr. Lapine with the help of their friends at DDES. Eventually, a trade was negotiated, and VMILT took over ownership of the rookery. They allowed folks to go near the nests at the wrong time of the year and within two years all the heron were gone. What had been an important environmental feature wisely managed by Mr. Lapine, was destroyed by collectivists who couldn’t find the proverbial “directions on the heel.”

These are the same folks who propose to manage all private property in King County, Washington, and these United States because they think property owners are too dumb to do it themselves.

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Clean Water Restoration Act is not about restoring clean water

January 21st, 2010

January 2010 saw my first attendance at the annual event in Washington DC promoted by American Land Rights Network. This year’s event(s) was entitled The Clean Water Restoration Act Briefings and Reception. I found the trip to be more than worthwhile for a number of reasons. I am really grateful for those who made the trip possible. The group is by invitation only. I already received my invitation for next year.

Background: For those who do not know the Clean Water Restoration Act is an attempt to federalize all water by taking out the word “navigable” from the previous provisions. If CWRA passes in its current form even the puddle or wetland in your backyard becomes a matter for the Corps of Engineers to regulate. Current regulations restrict enforcement to point-sources (sewage treatment plants, discharges, e.g.). The CWRA would strip that restriction and bring federal control to ANYTHING that might pollute a watershed directly or indirectly. Since everything affects a watershed directly or indirectly this is an enormous reach for power.

Briefings: I have been asked to protect the names of those staffers who came to brief us on what was happening with the Clean Water Restoration Act. We were given information on who was making good or bad things happen as well as who was preventing good or bad things from happening. This information really helps to know where the levers are when it comes to trying to accomplish something or block what is undesirable. At the moment the bill has not been reintroduced. This may be due to the fact that educational efforts on what is in the bill are eroding support even among those 158 who originally signed on as co-sponsors.

Networking: Probably as important as any information given or received at the event(s) was the networking with other property-rights minded people from around the country. These included veterans who have been in the battle for many years as well as relative newcomers to the fight.

I met folks from Virginia, New Mexico, Rhode Island, New York, Colorado, Vermont, Minnesota as well as staffers from both the Senate and House who are allies in the battle. Most of the folks from around the country are just like me. Most of them have seen too many freedoms erode. Some can point to ways they have preserved some of our freedom by their enjoining the property-rights battle.

Strategy: Our strategy on the CWRA is simple enough. We are to make sure that everyone knows this bill is not about restoring clean water. The more we show members of Congress and Senator the true language and nature of the bill the better chance we have of keeping this deceptively named bill from becoming law.

Posted in Federal | No Comments »

Private property distinguishes free countries from the rest

December 21st, 2009

What is it that makes a free country? Is it becuase the country is corruption-free. Nyet. Is it because the free country has taxation below a certain level? Nine.
What distinguishes a free country is the right and use of private property. Socialism / Communism says the government owns everything. Facism says it is prvately owned but government controlled. Freedom is defined by the right of a private citizen to own and control his private property.
In this country we are moving rapidly from that position to one of “freedom by permit only.” This allows government to keep the fascade of freedom.
“Of course you own it. Of course you may direct its use — as long as you get a permit (our permission) to do so.”
One of the main functions of a legitimate government is to provide protection from others infringing on my rights. When it is doing this it is not likely to violate the private property rights of individuals. When it treats property as a collective ownership and allows others to control property for which they are not footing the bill it becomes a monster.
That’s why our grandparents knew that if they wanted a privacy buffer they had to buy it. Today’s homeowner just calls for some regulation or enforcement that controls another’s property without any personal financial investment on their part. What a deal!
If each taxpayer had to pony up money for the so-called environmental protections that are being imposed today at the expense of private property owners we would be forced to prioritize those protections that really rise to the level of good and necessary.
As long as we attempt to get a public benefit without a public cost we will continue down the road to serfdom.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Hi! I’m with King County and I’m here to save your lifestyle!

December 21st, 2009

Run!

I did and if you want any semblance of a “rural” lifestyle, you will too.

The King County vision of a “rural economy” can be summed up in two words: forestry and agriculture. Their vision for the “Rural Area” is McMansions.

According to the 2002 US agricultural census there were 450 farms in King County that made a profit that averaged $99,949. There were 176 farms that grossed $50,000 or more. There were 1,098 farms that operated at an average net loss of $14,305. At the very most, there might be 100 farmers making a living in King County.

Forestry statistics are harder to find. In talking with people involved in that industry for many years it would seem that the only ones making any money in forestry are Weyerhauser and its peers. For the sake of analysis let’s pretend that there are 50 people making a living growing forest trees.

So the entire economy of rural King County, all 130,000 of us, is to be based on 150 families and the handful of businesses that support them. No wait, that is wrong. We have to add in the 1,098 families that pay money earned elsewhere to support their ag hobby.

There are only three acceptable uses for any property in rural King County: ag, forestry, or residential. Given the numbers above, which do you think will dominate? As “smart growth” crams more density into the 39 cities of King County we will see that core of 1,098 “gentlemen farmers” grow exponentially. The rich have always had at least two residences; one in the city and one in the “country”. Rural King County with its five-acre-minimum lots is poised perfectly for McMansion country homes. As government regulation keeps the land prices down by limiting density and uses, evermore city folks will be able to buy their country estate.

Good old country boys like yours truly that need to do something productive on the land to afford more than a quarter acre will have to move elsewhere. True country folks tend to be a little too “rustic” for the gentry. “Rustic” is the most used synonym for “rural” in the six dictionaries I checked, by the way. It is a little hard to achieve rustic when you are subject to building regulations more restrictive than those in the cities, but that is by design.

“The Puget Lowland was settled in the main by a rather select emigration from the North Central States, most of it biologically and socially equipped for success in various economic activities. Along with this predominant class of immigrant, however, were the usual number of socially less fitted types. Considering the recency of settlement in western Washington, there has been an interesting ecological segregation of types in the area. The socially superior peoples have settled in the cities and towns, or on the alluvial farm lands of the Basin, while the socially inferior have gravitated  to the foothill lands of marginal value.” (White and Renner, Human Geography: An Ecological Study of Society, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., New York, NY, 1948, p. 378.)

Country has always been the place where those of us “socially inferior” people who actually like rustic have lived, but it is time for us to go. The space we occupy will be filled with houses. That was inevitable. The only question was whether it would be filled with “rustic” affordable housing for the middle and lower classes or with urban quality McMansions where the “socially superior” peoples of the cities spend their weekends. The decision for the latter was made some time ago.

Any city that grows always consumes the countryside around it. The socially inferior country folk are always forced further out. Whether they are paid anything for their land depends on the largess of those in power.

Pretending to encourage a “rural economy” while doing everything possible to restrict a real economy in the rural area is typical of those currently in power. It may be good for the conscious, but it doesn’t do much for the country folk.

Posted in County | No Comments »

The problem with Evironmetalism

December 18th, 2009

I keep trying to remind people that environmentalism is, well, an “ism.” Folks who want to be good stewards aren’t necessarily into the religion of environmentalism. Those who “believe” strongly keep swerviing over into other aspects of the religion. Charles Colson, Nixon’s “hatchet-man” and convicted Watergate felon does a great job in his Dec. 18th radio broadcast of showing how the two keep intertwining themselves.

http://www.informz.net/pfm/archives/archive_913341.html

Read for yourself why we have a hard time keeping our fight to real property when taxes confiscate our private property and enironmentalism wants to threaten innocent life to reduce CO2 emmissions. They call for limits on children as a way to reduce the discredited theory of global warming. Talk about religious zealotry.

Just keep in mind that spotted owls and salmon never really were the goal. Saving a tree and a tract of developable land always has been the true goal.

And just like those who found that opposing the death-penalty for jury convicted criminals was harder than simply running the cost up beyond what is reasonable, so environmentalists have figured out that driving up the cost of a permit is easier than admitting that “back-to-nature-with-no-human-footprint” is the real goal.

So the battle really comes down to those who think mankind should be in charge of the environment and those who think the environment would be much better off without any human effect.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »