Are you interested in property rights? I ask the question because the issue of property rights has the potential to dramatically affect SmartGrowth, the Endangered Species Act, and a variety of other issues that greatly affect the conduct of life in Pugetopolis and in the nation as a whole. This article points to a case that, if it stands, has fairly cosmic implications. It may not stand. It may be laughed off as just a red-neck eastern Washington jury, out to get the government. It may be overturned on appeal. Or it may simply be ignored, establishing no precedent outside of the jurisdiction of the court involved. But it may also be like a whole slew of affirmative action cases that those who believe in preferential treatment as a redress for past (and present) inequities have elected not to challenge in higher courts for fear of establishing a precedent at higher levels.

An interesting decision has to be made. Do you just eat the $2.25 million loss, or elect to serve as the "poster-child" case for the property rights movement? Any opinions?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/html98/owll12m_20000512.html
Owl case awards $2 million to loggers 
by Ross Anderson 
Seattle Times staff reporter 
After years of economic setbacks blamed on spotted-owl protection, loggers scored a potentially huge win this week when a Yakima court awarded $2.25 million in damages to an Eastern Washington company that had been barred from logging its land. 
In an unprecedented verdict, the jury on Wednesday ordered the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to compensate SDS Co. of Bingen, Klickitat County, for the lost value of land and timber set aside for two federally-protected northern spotted owls near White Salmon. 

The ruling "has the potential" to set a major precedent in the continuing conflict between private property owners and wildlife protection, said Ernie Rushing, a senior assistant state attorney general who monitored the case. 
The state is considering an appeal, he said. 

the craigster




-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 12, 2000

Answers

Ithink the "red-necked Eastern Washington jury did just fine, personally.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 16, 2000.

The article also includes the following:

Jason Spadaro, co-owner of SDS, said the decision means government must spread the economic costs of wildlife protections more fairly.

"We argued the state's approach of asking just a few to carry the burden of spotted-owl protection is unfair," he said.

This is certainly a reasonable argument. And, certainly, the best solution would be for society or, even better, the enironmentalists to purchase the land from SDS.

However, it is not clear that the policy violates any constitutional rights. Our elected representatives make decisions on our behalf. If they choose to regulate a piece of land, affecting its economic use, that's life.

Using the logic of SDS, every regulation and tax could be considered an uncompensated "takings" of private property. It is my understanding that the constitution empowers our elected representatives to decide what, if any, is an appropriate compensation. If we don't like their decision, then we can always vote in new representatives.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 17, 2000.

"It is my understanding that the constitution empowers our elected representatives to decide what, if any, is an appropriate compensation"

You understand incorrectly (but then what's new). If no agreement is come to between the government and the owner, these cases typically wind up in court JUST LIKE THIS ONE DID.

I used to think that zowie was out of line, riding you so much. Obviously I can make mistakes too. It's obvious that he's correct, you do decrease the signal-to-noise ratio of this bulletin board considerably.

Mikey

-- (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), May 17, 2000.

http://www.southcountyjournal.com/sited/retr_story.pl/19828

KING COUNTY Council agrees to pay $3 million for 26 acres of farmland The Metropolitan King County Council agreed Monday to pay $3 million to John Torrance of Kirkland for about 26 acres of farmland between Kent and Auburn. The settlement ends a four-year court battle over zoning that had reached the state Supreme Court. The county intends to sell the land, but keep the development rights so it remains as an agricultural use. The land, known as the Monk farm, is located between Central Avenue and the Burlington Northern railroad tracks, just north of Southeast 277th Street. The Torrance family bought the land in 1966 with the idea they would develop it for industrial or commercial uses. However, the county steadfastly refused to change the land's agricultural zoning. In 1996, Torrance took his case to King County Superior Court, where a judge agreed that the zoning was an arbitrary ``taking'' of the property's value, especially since much of the surrounding land was developed. Eventually the dispute was ordered into mediation. A tentative agreement was reached earlier this year.

Gee, thats a little over $113,000 an acre. Of course, by settling this through arbitration, a legal precedent is not established. Kind of pricey for farmland that you are going to sell though.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 17, 2000.

to Mikey: I wrote: "It is my understanding that the constitution empowers our elected representatives to decide what, if any, is an appropriate compensation"

You write: "You understand incorrectly (but then what's new). If no agreement is come to between the government and the owner, these cases typically wind up in court JUST LIKE THIS ONE DID."

Isn't the court system part of the government? Aren't judges "elected representatives"? If not, the judges are appointed by our elected representatives. So, once again, I am correct. The GOVERNMENT, through OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, decides the appropriate compensation.

Good try, though, Mikey.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 18, 2000.

So, once again, I am correct. The GOVERNMENT, through OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, decides the appropriate compensation.

In an unprecedented verdict, THE JURY on Wednesday ordered the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to compensate SDS Co. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/html98/owll12m_20000512.ht ml

Elected many JURORS lately Matt?

Craigs right. You make no effort to read the posted articles or understand the ideas of the people posting here, before engaging in your adolescent diatribes. Better you should keep out of the way of the adults who are posting here.

Mikey

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), May 18, 2000.

to Mikey: Touche!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 19, 2000.