Passions run high on county land rules

2004-10-19
by Dean A. Radford
King County Journal Reporter

King County, WA - Dozens of rural residents railed against what they call a land grab by King County in the guise of wetland protection, painting a picture of two King counties at odds with each other.

About 90 people testified Monday before the King County Council on the controversial update of the Critical Areas Ordinance, a package of rules regulating runoff, land-clearing and sensitive areas such as wetlands.

Marshall Brenden of Renton came with what he called a simple plea:

``Please don't steal my land,'' he said. If the county wants his land, then pay for it, he said. ``I certainly did.''

The passion rivaled that of rural residents and others who opposed county efforts several years ago to place stiffer regulations on where to build churches and schools in rural areas.

That issue also pitted the council's Seattle Democrats and environmentalists against its rural Republicans and rural landowners bent on defending their property rights.

Democrats hold a 7-6 majority on the County Council.

The goal of the rules, proponents say, is to protect vital resources like the county's underground water supplies and wildlife habitat, as well as its rural lifestyle.

The vast majority of speakers used their two minutes to tell the council the ordinances were bad public policy that would cost them dearly.

Roughly a dozen agreed with the package, mostly representatives of environmental groups who gave the changes to County Executive Ron Sims' initial proposal a tepid thumbs up. They lobbied for wider wetland buffers in urban areas.

``This is really about protection of land for the future,'' said Dave Russell of Kirkland, president of the 1000 Friends of Washington.

Council members have heard the messages from opponents before:

* If you want to take my land for some greater good, then pay me.

* If you want to protect natural resources, such as water, for everyone then make everyone pay for it.

* If you want my back yard for a wetland buffer, then do the same in Seattle.

Once their property rights are gone, warned one speaker, rural residents will never get them back.

Speakers were asked to show respect to each other and the council. Still, some council members felt uncomfortable.

At one point, Councilman Dwight Pelz, a Seattle Democrat who represents part of South King County, felt the need to declare that he's not a Communist. That came after one speaker warned that King County was in essence becoming a Soviet state.

Councilman Steve Hammond of Enumclaw even thanked Pelz for recognizing that constitutional rights were in play.

The crowd spilled out of the council chambers and mezzanine area above to additional space on the courthouse's 12th floor where the proceedings were shown on live TV.

Some asked why big-time developers could build mega-developments, such as Redmond Ridge on the Eastside, when just next door they can't develop their own smaller lots.

She could if her name was Sandra Weyerhaeuser, said Sandra Rosenfield of Duvall, referring to the Federal Way-based timber company whose subsidiary, Bellevue-based Quadrant, builds homes.

A few said the two minutes to comment was an affront, given the complexity of the issue. The county has held about two dozen meetings on the ordinances during which public comment often was taken.

Two speakers from Vashon Island supported the changes, saying they protect the rural lifestyle that's still predominant on the island.

Dow Constantine, chairman of the council's growth committee, represents them.

The council will sort it all out next Monday when it takes a series of votes on amendments to the committee's recommendation and finally on the entire package.

Hammond, who took up where the late Kent Pullen left off as an advocate for protecting property rights, isn't holding out much hope for wholesale changes that would appease rural residents.

``It will pass on party lines over our objections,'' said Hammond, a Republican. Democrats control the council with a 7-6 majority. ``I am just saying it's an issue of fairness.''

Cherri Mann of Woodinville said she has been unable to find any buyers for her five acres because environmental regulations have rendered it unusable.

``Let it be fair,'' she said of the ordinance. ``Let it pertain to all residents of King County.''

Dean Radford covers King County. He can be reached at dean.radford@kingcountyjournal.com or 253-872-6719.

RELATED STORY:

Residents blast rural restrictions

By Ashley Bach
Seattle Times Eastside bureau

10/19/04

Rural property owners in King County had their last chance yesterday to speak against tough new restrictions that would limit how they can develop their land. And the residents took advantage, speaking to the Metropolitan King County Council for five hours straight about what they see as a land grab by urban politicians.

The meeting capped a series of contentious public hearings on the restrictions going back to last year, and the landowners' arguments did not cover much new ground. But they spoke for the first time to the entire council, which is expected to approve the "critical areas" ordinances Monday.

"[The council members] need to hear us," said Rodney McFarland, president of the Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights. "It's today or nothing."

The three ordinances, covering sensitive areas, stormwater, and clearing and grading, are designed to protect streams and salmon from flooding and drought caused by low-density development, say County Executive Ron Sims and council Democrats.

Under the current version of the plan, rural residents with lots larger than 7 acres would have to leave 65 percent of their land in native vegetation when they develop. Buffers around some rural streams and wetlands would see large increases.

About 90 people spoke about the plan yesterday, and most of them opposed it. They began arriving in the morning and soon filled council chambers and a balcony and conference room two floors above.

Their comments were often heated, and the passion seemed to spread to the council members, whose opinions on the ordinances appear to be split down party lines.

"If you want my property so bad, why don't you pay for it?" said Julie Smith, who lives in the Kent area. "... I've seen some low blows by politicians, but this by far takes the cake."

The critical-areas plan isn't the first land-use decision to affect a group of people, said Councilwoman Julia Patterson, D-SeaTac. Rural residents and other opponents weren't sympathetic when south King County residents unsuccessfully opposed a third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Patterson said. "None of you came forward to speak on behalf of my people ... " she said. "None of my Republican friends joined me."

Joe Ryan, president of the Washington Environmental Council, said salmon numbers are dwindling, and they need help. "This ordinance is critical for salmon recovery in our region."

The Democrat-controlled council probably won't make radical changes to the ordinances when they come up Monday, but 27 amendments were proposed yesterday. These range from grammatical fixes to an increase in urban wetland buffers and a smaller increase to rural wetland buffers.

Rural landowners said the fight won't be over even if the ordinances become law. Residents are already being asked to contribute to a legal fund that would challenge the new plan in court, McFarland said.

"Voluntary compliance? Forget it," Carnation-area resident Preston Drew told the council. "Lawsuits? You bet."

Ashley Bach: 206-464-2567 or abach@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company