In a stunning defeat for private property rights, the Washington Supreme Court ruled today that the Seattle Monorail Project was justified in taking more property than it needed to build a station. Concurring with Justice Madsen's majority opinion in the local version of Kelo v New London were Justices Bridge, C. Johnson, Alexander, Owens, Chambers and Fairhurst. Dissenting were Justices Sanders and J. Johnson.
Chief (in)Justice Gerry Alexander and associate (in)Justice Susan Owens, who have been among the most consistent defenders of unrestrained executive privilege, will be up for re-election in 2006, when they should be voted off the bench.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 20, 2005 10:50 AM | Email ThisWaiting for my home to be taken so that they can build a squirrel bridge. Just a matter of time.
Posted by: Jeffro on October 20, 2005 11:11 AMhttp://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 20, 2005 11:15 AMGOD I AM SICK OF THESE COMMUNIST BASTARDS.
Posted by: JCM on October 20, 2005 11:36 AMThere are counties that you have to pay 500 bucks to chop down blackberry bushes on your land.
The CAO in King County!
The initiative for no smoking (I-901) declares that personal residences are "public places" and it's going to pass and become law and anyone providing anytype of social service in their home will have to go outside 25 feet from their doors to smoke, even if the elderly parent you are caring for smokes... The elderly person loses their right to smoke in any type of assisted living or getting Medicaid/Medicare.
This state absolutely THRIVES on telling others what to do. Look at all of the Homeowner Associations......
The new CAO in Thurston County has long time residents in an uproar.....
If I-912 passes, you can expect to see Gregoire declare that the viaduct and the 520 bridge are an emergency and direct that they be replaced!
They will take money away from every congestion relief plan currently in place and then blame the voters for passing I-912!
As long as Logan is in position, know one will know what really passes or he makes pass by counting thousands of illegal votes.
I would hope that this case will go to the Supreme Court and what will happen to all of the properties they've snatched when and if the monorail fails to pass??????
This is the nanny state from hell!
Posted by: sgmmac on October 20, 2005 11:39 AMIf this isn't outright sanctioned THEFT of private property, what is?
Oh yea, silly me, so is the CAO.
Posted by: AndyN on October 20, 2005 11:46 AMOh wait...there is no Cascade County.
Yet.
Posted by: Danno on October 20, 2005 12:14 PM-- NOT Yet, but we're working on it....
Posted by: John on October 20, 2005 12:31 PMAt the end of the day, nobody is having their property taken from them. The property owners will receive just compensation for the full lot - as is their constitutional right.
If you've got a beef with the outcome of this case, don't blame the judges because there's absolutely nothing improper about this decision. If you want to change the outcome, change the legislature.
Posted by: Claire on October 20, 2005 01:47 PMThese government folks will do AnythingForMoney.
Posted by: baffles on October 20, 2005 01:49 PMWhat will stop a city now from doing this? If you own 100 acres and the city needs 10 acres for a new road, they can condemn all 100 and sell the remaining 90 acres?
This is a nightmare! Our State Supreme Court is permanently stuck on stupid. Any darn thing a city or other quasi government body wants to do is righteous with these idiots!
Posted by: sgmmac on October 20, 2005 02:10 PMGiven that the monorail project very narrowly chartered to construct and manage the Seattle Monorail
and that the monorail project does not have an inherent power of eminent domain because it is a municipal corporation and not a bona fide legislative body
and that the monorail project's right to condem is specifically stated in law as follows:
... To acquire by purchase, condemnation, gift, or grant and to lease, construct, add to, improve, replace, repair, maintain, operate, and regulate the use of public monorail transportation facilities, including passenger terminal and parking facilities and properties, and other
facilities and properties as may be necessary for passenger and vehicular access to and from public monorail transportation facilities, together with all lands, rights of way, and property within or outside the authority area, and together with equipment and accessories necessary or appropriate for these facilities . . . .
How does this legally allow the Monorail to condemn the entire property, instead of only the portion required to complete the project *AND* with evidence entered that specifically shows the monorails intent to sell the unused portion of the property after the construction is complete at a higher value than what it paid.
Even if this is legal, it certianly leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
Especially considering that the property owner originally intended to rent the "non-required" portion of the land to the monorail project for the duration of the construction.
Posted by: George on October 20, 2005 02:15 PMJustice Johnson states in his dissent that the state constitution requires a judicial decision that does not grant deference to the legislative assertion, but rather favors the private property rights of the private citizen.
So, like in Kelo, the justices ignored the constitution, the document that MUST, by definition guide and define their rulings, choosing instead to impose their activist agendas on the citizens of Washington State.
What does government have to finally take from these liberals before they go too far?
The majority uses specious reasoning, that traffic is a problem, that government has a duty to solve the problem, and that any solution they undertake to do so, no matter how misguided, is justified.
And I haven't even begun to address a reasonable assertion that the monorail, or any mass transit proposal, will do little to relieve traffic congestion. I have a car, and I'm not afraid to use it.
"At the end of the day, nobody is having their property taken from them. The property owners will receive just compensation for the full lot - as is their constitutional right."
Still waiting for my rebate check from KC... About to the tune of a 65% property tax reduction due to the CAO. Well, lets see, they increased my tax "per month" 460.00. So if I get a reduction per "constitutional right", I will still have a net increase. I saw this coming, my house is up for sale, I vote with my feet, (after 15 years, I can't afford the tax on my house) enough is enough...
Posted by: Ted Bundy on October 20, 2005 02:20 PMThe issue in the case was not how much property should be condemned (my last post was inaccurate in that is suggested otherwise - my mistake - I was reading the opinion for the first time) but the extent of the property interest that should be subject to condemnation. The property owner had already stipulated the SMP was condmening the entire property for public use, they were arguing that the portion not needed for the footprint of the monorail station should have been condemned on a temporary basis. The Majority concluded that, consistent with long standing Washington case law, the court should defer to the agency as to the type and extent of the property interest condemned. Ultimately, there's nothing earth shattering about this case.
Their drugs.
Posted by: pbj on October 20, 2005 02:34 PMDo you hear the people sing
Singing the song of angry men
It is the music of a people who will not be slaves again!
Why shouldn't we take to the barricades? Injustice perpetrated against one man by the government is an injustice to all. Private property is the foundation of a just and free society, and it is worth fighting for!
Posted by: Dan on October 20, 2005 02:37 PMThe only thing they fight for is taxes, voter fraud and more money to spend on naked statues, kiddy porn, and mass transit for the masses so that the roads are clear for their Bentleys!
Posted by: sgmmac on October 20, 2005 02:42 PM"You've made your ruling. Now try to enforce it."
Posted by: jimg on October 20, 2005 03:04 PMTheir drugs.
Answer- legalized abortion. Seriously, it seems to be the only thing they care about anymore.
Posted by: Jeffro on October 20, 2005 03:28 PMProperty rights are the most fundamental rights in a free society. You should read the Federalist Papers and get an idea how important. Remember the draft Declaration of Independence it was "Life, Liberty and Property."
Combine this WA court ruling with Kelo and the state can confiscate all of your property, not just what is needed, for not only public works projects, but to give your property to another private party when the 2nd parties use would have a higher public benefit, i.e. more taxes.
Who decides "public benefit?"
The government taking the property.
Who decides "fair compensation?"
The government taking the property.
Claire you statement is either that of a communist or out of ignorance. Read the founders on property. If you still think the way you do now then you're a communist. Communism is the enemy of Freedom, Liberty and all free peoples everywhere.
Posted by: JCM on October 20, 2005 03:46 PMAs the dissenting judges remarked, a most unique way to finance a black hole.
Claire is in error in her assessment of this case for it will have a chilling effect and far reaching impact as it provides a ready means for financing government agencies and in meeting their dreams (goals) regardless of the costs to society.
Simply put:
You own ten acres of valuable land. The government need 2 acres for a station or whatever. So they take the 10 acres and use two acres. Ten years later the surplus 8 acres are sold for a handsome profit.
The dissenting judges nailed it.
Once again citizens suffer at the hands of just age.
Snuffy
Posted by: snuffy on October 20, 2005 04:01 PMFifteen years ago I said that in my estimation the whole thing is a sham. Yes, I agreed that owl numbers are down, however I pointed out that there reasons for their decline that are known to and accepted by scientists and biologists which are being deliberately discounted and/or overlooked.
Fifteen years ago I advanced the opinion, based upon the history of those individuals and groups advocating the logging bans and who their political allies were, that the people behind this travesty were nothing more than hateful individuals intent on destroying a way of life and people's lives in the process. My opinion was that they despised those in the logging industry because they were independent and self-reliant types and I stand behind that assertion today.
I remember their 'generous offers' to 'retrain' (can you say reprogram) those in forest industry jobs, most specifically their suggestion that they could find work in the emerging high tech field or in the service industry. At the time that this was being proposed I commented that it would be much kinder to simply drag them out to the garage and put a bullet in their head than to subject them to some Nazi/Stalinist type of experiment using them as human Guinea pigs. The success rate of what their little experiment (equivalent to what it would have been should they have been advocating trying to take some Ivy League intellectual or New England flower shop worker and expect them to do well as a either northwest logger or Barring Sea fisherman) should have been known to them, it was obvious to me what it would be. It simply wasn’t a realistic expectation. Not only that, I believe that they knew that going in and therefore I feel justified in my assessment as them as evil.
If you are not familiar with the end result of the deliberate and systematic destruction of the timber industry just take a look at the communities where such indicators of the level of human despair, such as meth addiction, suicide, chronic alcoholism have sprung up within the last fifteen years. I could and did tell every one who would listen to me exactly what the result of this policy was going to be and I was 100% correct in my prediction.
What this entire sorry episode revolved around was destroying a way of life and they were successful in doing just that. Advocates of this travesty are no less culpable for the systematic destruction of individual lives and entire communities such as Chehalis, Pe Ell, Forks and Morton than was the Stalin regime culpable for the Ukrainian ‘famine’ or the systematic destruction of the Kulak’s and what is more their motives were, if not identical in magnitude, born out of the same hatred for independent people.
If you too have been following emerging news stories and are aware of any reliable study that refutes what every follow-up study that I have seen in the last five years I would be interested in looking at them. This is just two of the latest and there have been dozens of them in the last couple years.
First, make it so that election laws can be violated, broken, ignored, and not a thing will happen to those that violate them. State officials, federal officials, and all of the law enforcement apparatus have said they will do nothing.
Now, we remove the right to your property. Again, state, federal, and law enforcement does nothing.
Next up? Watch, the state will find a reason to confiscate all weapons. I am sure we can find a reason "for the children" to do so.
THEN, the circle is complete. Laws that only apply to those who disagree with the state, property rights that no longer exist, AND removal of the ONLY means to get that property back.
My friends, we are now in the SOCIALIST state of Washingon (and soon the country.)
They will have taken everything you own and you will have NO recourse.
The ONLY redeeming part of all this is eventually the state will get around to screwing the LIBERALS too, but it will be too late to change things.
And I PROMISE to do everything in my power to aid the state in persecuting those who helped this sorry situation to occur.
That is, if I'm not already in jail for fighting the system in the first place.
I AM READY FOR THE REVOLUTION. TELL ME WHERE TO SIGN UP!!
For those who say I am extreme, tell me what else have I got to lose? My freedom? What freedom?
And there is NOTHING more dangerous than a populace with NOTHING left to lose. History is replete with examples of that!
Posted by: elmo on October 20, 2005 04:20 PMBring it on - because I won't go alone!
I'm with you elmo!
No need to sign up, the battle eventually will be brought to our very doorsteps.
Posted by: Jeffro on October 20, 2005 04:32 PMThe 2nd amendment is being degraded continually.
Property rights, between the tax laws Kelo and this new travesty, private property is going... going...
This election the revolution starts.
DO NOT RETURN ANY INCUMBENT TO OFFICE.
I do not give a rat's a** if they are good conservatives, (a lot voted for the 9 1/2 cents). We need to send a message, sweep halls of government clean. Then if things remain the same, consider civil disobedience.
Posted by: JCM on October 20, 2005 06:09 PMOne poll I saw on opinions about the Kelo v. New London decision showed that over 95% of respondents thought it was a bad decision. I think it might be a good campaign issue to run on - promise to push for stricter limits on property seizure and redefine "blight" and "common good" in ways that make sense and leave no room for creative interpretation.
Posted by: Peggy U on October 20, 2005 06:40 PMTill then you play the fool.
Posted by: JCM on October 20, 2005 08:44 PMI've read Kelo and I don't recall seeing your name, were you a party to the case? Have you had your property condemned by the government? Do you know anyone who has? Think about it, do you know anyone who has had their property taken by the government in through a emiment domained proceeding. Somehow I doubt it. Neither the SMP case or Kelo are the end of the world. The government is not going to come and take your house from you. Just relax, there's no reason to take up arms.
Posted by: Claire on October 20, 2005 10:11 PMI remember an old story, here is the short version - goes like this..
they took a man who was a stranger to me and nobody spoke out. They took my neighbor and I didn't speak out, then they took me and nobody spoke out.
Rick or poor, keeping our property is afterall essential to society. Taking another person property is a violation of society's rules. That basis. Government may take property only when it is needed for the good of the public. Property has often been taken by various agencies and later deemed surplus and sold. Personally I am aware of and agrued about such property owned by the Edmonds School District during the 70's. That was 100's of acres. It is a big deal as it affects all of us. Property rights are central to our form of government. Wanton violation of such rights damages all of us. We have publicly witnessed any number of rights being violated in a few short years: Land being taken on behalf of salmon. I know people who have loss the use of their land because of a "steam" that only appears during rain storms. Are they rich, no. But they are sure poorer because of it.
Last year a governor took office after the third count of votes. Evidence clearly shows it is impossible to know who won that race. Did we have a run off. Nope. The courts supported the crime. This year we are witnessing free speech being denied. Are people concern? Not enough of them.
Next year we will witness new gun laws being drafted. Are we concern. Not enough are concern.
If the people of Washington blah like sheep. What do you expect. We have to make a fuss over suffer the consequences. Our property rights in this state are suffering. Rich or poor, all lose.
When they took a strange I didn't say a word, when they took my neighbor I didn't speak out. Now they took me. And 9 million were lost. Learn from history. My grandfather had to flee Europe to save his family. He sought a better life in America. Now I am thinking, where do I go to protect my family? You tell me.
Posted by: snuffy on October 20, 2005 11:36 PMYes...they can sell the remainding 90 acres...of which the new owner will only be allowed to use 35%! The other 65% that the county previously condemed will now be considered a valuable wetland.....and THEY will receive federal funding for your land! What a friggin scham!
This entire property rights issue should not be an issue at all in our nation. This is the United Sates of American dammit!
Posted by: Deborah on October 20, 2005 11:40 PMIn a way I am glad that this property rights thing is being discussed on a Seattle blog, by people who have not suffered at the hands of King County reforms. Perhaps now, the people who live in Seattle will have an experience to remember and in remembering it will become clearer to them what it means to suffer from runaway government and corruption. Think about what occurred. The irony of it. A fellow who suffered the possible loss of his property during WWII. Later returned to discover a friend look out for him and he re secured his property. Shortly after his death, his family fights a losses a battle with the government over that property. And now, poof, it is gone. Never to be returned because a defunct monorail needs the property to build a station (not) a claim that I doubt will be done. As the monorail is a doomed plan, unless the people in Seattle vote yet again for the new toy. How many more pieces of property will be seized to dupport the monorail, so when it goes defunct, the property(s) be auctioned off at a profit to help pay for the debts of the monorail. Sweet irony.
It is also funny the "do you know anyone that has" loss property or voted twice or ..... Well, I for one know a number of people that have loss their proeprty to govenment agencies and continue to lose thier properties. Claire, if you have a day I will be more than happy to share their plights with you. This has been going on for a number of years throughout Washington. Whole towns have been boarded up because of some spotted owls, that are becoming extinct because other owls are breaking their eggs. Does that mean the greens are going to give back the properties. Hell no. Friends and relatives have suffered under the 500 foot set back from streams that appear only during the rainy season and dryup in the summer. Trust me, where those streams are, there are no salmon. But they lose the property values. The taxes don't go down. Just the values. So in a way, I am glad that this case focused on the problem of property rights and the property was right in the heart of Seattle. You have to love.
Suffy
Posted by: snuffy on October 21, 2005 12:17 AMI've been posting in response to your comments on several different threads, so I'm surprised you'd ask:
"What's the big fuss - has anyone, anyone, who is posting on this site ever had property that has been condemned in an eminent domain proceeding by the State of Washington or any other government agency?"
Yes! I have, by King County through the CAO, my right to use my property as I see fit has been taken for the "greater public good".
While I'm impressed by your consistency, I'm amazed by your disregard for individual liberties.
We are the government, those elected officials, bureaucrats, and judges are acting as our agents, on our behalf. When you allow them to take private property, I see little difference between that and walking across the street to your neighbors house and demanding they sign it over to you at the point of a gun.
I am heartened by the increasingly vocal response of my fellow citizens who still believe that the constitution, and the rights of individuals still matter. Is the pendulum swinging back in the "right" direction in Washington? I deeply hope so.
Claire's shows her hand when she attacks corporations and wealthy landowners. How dare they not distribute their land to the government for the good of the whole,as she sips her starbucks and types her post on her Windows OS. Rich or poor, weathy or corporate - nothing justifies such takings.
Claire, you claim to not be a communist but every post you make indicates otherwise.
Posted by: Jeffro on October 21, 2005 07:20 AMI rather take action now, via elections and pressure on the government than wait until arms would be necessary.
Where I live in Shoreline the City wants to rezone my neighborhood to multi-unit. When we bought it was R-8. It has been rezoned to R-12, the City wanted R-16 but we held that off.
Under Kelo and the new WA court ruling this scenario is possible.
The City decides to widen my street, under eminent domain they condemn my property and determine the value (seldom a true market value). They then take my property, widen the street by x-feet. Then the sell the remaining property to a developer who will put a multi-unit project on my property.
All of that would be legal under these laws.
The street gets widened for the public good.
The remaining parcel gets used by someone else and it is for the public good because it provides more units and higher tax revenue.
The founders intent was that eminent domain be used only for Public Works projects, not redistribution of property to generate higher tax revenues.
Claire, do you own property?
At the time of the Kelo decision, I spent some time with the Kos Kids. A substantial majority of them were just as outraged about the decision as any conservative--but they refused to hear that the decision was supported by the liberals on the Court. (It was all Bush's fault, you see; they said this over and over and over again.)
A smallish minority--at the Daily Kos--did agree with the decision.
So it's a little disingenuous for any leftist to be pretending that this is not controversial.
Posted by: Bostonian on October 21, 2005 08:09 AMAm I mistaken that civil rights and the constitution as a whole does not apply to the wealthy or to people that own corporations? If so please enlighten me as to where that is written in the document, if not your whole premise is nonesense. We do not need any more 'screw the rich' policies. They damage everyone!
Posted by: fred on October 21, 2005 09:16 AMFor a person to be willing to risk capital, whether starting a business or investing, the investor must have confidence that the capital it self is sacrosanct. That the only risk is the risk inherent in business. Not the risk that a new "government" will take charge and change the rules, thereby confiscating the capital.
To see how the negative works look at Zimbabwe, Sudan, et. al. Farmers are unwilling to accept the risk of planting because of the high likelihood that one group or another will destroy or steal the crop. The result is famine.
A more subtle effect is in R&D and small entrepreneurship. Europe vs. US. Much of the R&D for multinationals is done in US instead of the EU because of the regulations. Small business is the bulk of US business. A farmer or small business can start up and be virtually guaranteed to have a business to pass to the next generation.
This guarantee of property rights is the fundamental underlying engine of the US economy.
Remember while the US is 5% of the world population we produce 25% of the worlds wealth.
The foundation of that phenomenal productivity is the individuals property is the irrevocably the individuals.
When you remove this foundation we will see the US economy go in the tank (like the EU) and all those pet socialist programs will be impossible to fund.
Posted by: JCM on October 21, 2005 10:28 AM1. The Washington State Constitution requires that the courts decide if the claim of public use is valid in eminent domain cases. This is not judicial activism, but the court exercising its constitutional power. Rather it is activist to refuse to exercise this power as the majority does in this case.
2. The exercise of eminent domain is not unusual, and the argument of the appellant that the Monorail did not have the power to use ED is clearly wrong. The argument of the appellant that they should retain the remainder of the property is wholly separate form that argument and should be considered.
3. The argument that ED is used only against the wealthy and powerful is terribly flawed. Assume a reasonable scenario: you have a public street in front of your house. Your city government decides to expand that street. Under the majority opinion the city can seize your whole property because they can make a valid use claim for a fraction of your property. Under this ruling the city could then sell your property to Starbucks –for a profit.
4. The case is important because, according to the dissent, the Monorail chose properties based on the value of the remaining parcels expressly with the sale of those remainders in mind.
The ability to seize the whole of an individual’s property because a valid public use claim can be made for a fraction of the property will allow abuses of eminent domain, particularly if we allow agencies to sell these seized properties for profit.
We live in a Republic, our state constitution givs us the power to ***elect judges***.
I can gurantee you that electing another Jim Johnson to the state Supreme Court is both easier and safer than the nut case scenario for change "Third Party Voter" appears to advocate.
Posted by: Court Watcher on October 24, 2005 11:19 AMWe live in a Republic, our state constitution givs us the power to ***elect judges***.
I can gurantee you that electing another Jim Johnson to the state Supreme Court is both easier and safer than the nut case scenario for change "Third Party Voter" appears to advocate.
Posted by: Court Watcher on October 24, 2005 11:19 AMWe live in a Republic, our state constitution givs us the power to ***elect judges***.
I can gurantee you that electing another Jim Johnson to the state Supreme Court is both easier and safer than the nut case scenario for change "Third Party Voter" appears to advocate.
Posted by: Court Watcher on October 24, 2005 11:19 AM