Rural Land Restrictions and the Fifth Ammendment
On July 7th, the State Court of Appeals overturned the 2004 King County Critical -Areas Ordinance. One of the most far-reaching laws of its kind, the ordinance prohibits landowners from removing vegetation from more than half of a property larger than 1-¼ acres or more. It is no secret that this ordinance has been extremely controversial. It has been the classic battle between those who want to preserve our environment (particularly watersheds) and those who feel that a land owner cannot be unduly restricted by governmental regulations. The court called the ordinance an indirect but illegal “tax, fee, or charge” on development. Basically, the court ruled that when property owners are restricted by government from the use of their property, they must be duly compensated. To be perfectly honest with you, I must agree with the court on this issue. As a community we certainly don’t want our neighbors turning their property into meth labs or toxic waste sites; however, we have an equal obligation as stewards of our own land to protect it and preserve its value.
This whole issue has been a wake-up call to all of us. We have an obligation to understand our rights and, when we feel they are being violated, we need to fight for them. Nothing speaks more loudly than the Fifth Ammendment to the constitution:
