[Capr-announce] CAPR News September 2008

[Jeff Wright]

CAPR NEWS

 

THE MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FROM CITIZENS’ ALLIANCE FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS


September, 2008

 

 

October Meeting of King Co. Chapter at New Location

 

The Thursday, October 2nd meeting of the King Co. Chapter of CAPR will be at
Gibson Hall located at 105 Newport Way in Issaquah rather than our usual
IHOP restaurant location.  We have been looking for an alternate location to
the IHOP mainly due to fact that the room at the IHOP is noisy and not well
suited to the actual meeting even though it is good to  have a full menu
available for dining and socializing ahead.  Given that, we have booked
Gibson for our October and November meetings.  Some of you might recognize
Gibson Hall as the Issaquah Kiwanis Club meeting place.

 

As an experiment, pizza, salad and drinks will be available for a donation
for those who want to arrive ahead and get something to eat.  Things will
get going at 6:00 PM with the meeting at 7:00.  If you plan to come and eat,
please respond to  <mailto:jeff at proprights.org> jeff at proprights.org so that
we know how to plan.

 

Our guest at the October meeting will be King Co. Code Enforcement Officer
Mary Impson.  She will be discussing how and what DDES code enforcement
does.  We are looking forward to a respectful exchange with Ms. Impson.

 

For more information about Gibson Hall, including a map locator, click here
<http://www.issaquah.kiwanis.org/> .

 

 

Will Horse Boarders Be the Latest Victims of King County?

 

In the July edition of this letter, we wrote how the King Co. Assessor
changed its interpretation of the law governing agricultural tax exemptions.
State law says that a property must be involved in a list of activities
deemed agricultural to qualify for an exemption.  Up until at least two
years ago, King Co. has only required that a property only to be involved
with part of the list, not all of it.  However, the County now maintains
that the State is making it enforce the letter of the law.

 

Many of those affected by this flip-flop are skeptical.  One theory is that
it is a move for a quick influx of tax revenue for the State and County.
This is a reasonable thought given the deep budget holes in which the State
and County have buried themselves.  Aside from losing the tax exemption,
properties that no longer qualify might also get a bill for seven years of
back taxes for the exemption amount they’ve received.  This will include a
“penalty” which equals roughly 23% of the exemption.  This can amount to a
staggering bill.  While this would give a quick “pop” to government coffers,
long term it would be revenue neutral given the way the property tax burden
is spread across all properties.

 

The more likely scenario is that this is a drive to convert farm land into
the “open space” that the County and State crave.  Take away the tax
advantage and many hobby farms and horse boarding operations will fail.
Couple it with the potential tax penalty and quickly that farm land becomes
“open space”.  The public will decry the loss of farms but this plays right
into the hands of the environmental community which generally sees farms as
a source of pollution.  As an example, read the piece written by Seattle
Times columnist Danny Westneat suggesting that the County keep
<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2008193190_danny21.html
>  its hands off the farms.

 

If this isn’t slick enough, the County offers a carrot which might offset
the property owner’s grief.  It is called the Public Benefits Rating System
program and offers a partial tax break.  More important, for those without a
ready mountain of cash to handle the back taxes and penalties, it offers a
way to stave off the tax collector.  To qualify, a property has to offer
“public benefits” which must remain unchanged while in the program.  These
might include public access onto the property, critical areas, farm land
(with a farm plan, of course) or 
 open space.   Did I hear someone yell
BINGO!  I thought so.

 

The walls between many State agencies, the King Co. Executive’s Office and
the King Co. Assessors office are paper thin.  It would be naïve to think
that these are independent acts of independent agencies.  This may be coming
from the State, but not in the way one would expect.

 

 Without a change in state law, there might not be much that property owners
can do to change their situation.  However, that doesn’t mean there isn’t
going to be a fight.  The way the Assessor is handling this, the new
interpretation is retroactive for five years.  They are changing the rules
after the fact.  At a well attended meeting of a group of horse boarders
recently, some with much to lose, the talk turned quickly to possible legal
challenges, done en masse.

 

Here we go again!

 

 

Another Growth Board Ruling Struck Down          

 

The Washington Division 3 Appeals Court has thrown out yet another Growth
Board decision in the case of Yakima
<http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=267831MAJ>
County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.  This follows
the recent trend where Appeals Courts have struck down the rulings of Growth
Management Hearings Boards (Hearings Board).

 

This particular case involved a partial rezone of a large property.  The
portion involved is a high, arid ridge top that was previously zoned as
agricultural land.  Given the terrain and the fact that they have no water
rights for irrigation, the owners requested that the area be rezoned to a
“rural self-sufficient” designation.  This classification allows for
five-acre lots with no outside utilities.  Yakima Co. granted their request.

 

To make a long story short, the neighbors appealed to the Hearings Board,
which ruled in their favor.  Yakima Co. appealed, and the Superior Court
told the Hearings Board that it had erred and to try again.  For all intents
and purposes, the Hearings Board did not change its earlier decision.  With
that, the Appeals Court overturned the Hearings Board ruling.  The Court’s
opinion clearly illustrates that Yakima Co. was deliberative in its action
and that the Hearings Board did not follow the letter or intent of the
Growth Management Act.

 

It is disturbing to see case after case where the courts rule that Hearing
Boards around the state are not following the law.  And typically, these
cases have to do with the basics of the law, not some esoteric point.  This
is an illustration of why so many have called for changes in the Growth
Management Act or at least a change in how the Hearing Boards are manned.
Currently, they consist of political appointees.  Political appointees
should not be deciding matters of law!

 

 

Odds and Ends

 

Matching Contributions

If you work for a company, which adds matching funds to charitable
contributions, remember the CAPR Legal Fund.  All donations to the Legal
Fund are tax deductible and the additional contribution by your employer
makes leverages your contribution towards protecting your property rights.

 

 

CAPR Meeting Schedule

 

Please see the top of the page for this month’s particulars.

 

 

Jeff Wright

Secretary, CAPR

E-mail:        jeff at proprights.org

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/private/capr-announce/attachments/20080925/f8b60b04/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7958 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/private/capr-announce/attachments/20080925/f8b60b04/attachment-0001.jpe