If so, it’s a horrible waste of money.
In a recent blog post, Brian T. Hodges of the Pacific Legal Foundation discussed a Washington State Supreme Court Ruling issued on August 18th…
The average city or county spends several years developing an SMP update. During this time, it expends thousands of hours of staff and volunteer time, hundreds of thousands of dollars in research, and holds hundreds of hours of public meetings. All of this is necessary to develop a comprehensive and locally appropriate regulatory scheme. Multiply that by the 260+ jurisdictions that are required to update their plans over the next few years and you can begin to see the massive local effort being undertaken across the state.
But according to the Supreme Court this massive local effort is a meaningless, feel-good exercise: “The involvement of local jurisdictions in the SMP process is a benevolent gesture by the state.” Ultimate control, the Court explained, lies in the unelected and politically appointed bureaucrats in the Department of Ecology.
This ruling should not sit well with the elected officials, planners, attorneys, staff, volunteer commissioners, public participants, and citizens of each and every city and county in the state.
Hodges went on to say that, “The ruling is not a big deal for citizens wanting to bring a challenge like (the plaintiffs) did…. The Supreme Court’s ruling simply instructs land owners in (the plaintiff’s) position to name Ecology as a defendant and assert a constitutional violation in lieu of RCW 82.02.020.
The PLF lost, big time, as did the challengers of Whatcom County’s SMP, which the Department of Ecology had sent back, recommending changes that the County accepted. Read the decision, which Gary Tripp has sent, I expect, to everyone on his mailing list. What would we do without Gary?
One consequence of the ruling will sit well with many elected officials and City or County employees: They will not have to make policies in fear of lawsuits from aggrieved, and sometimes ill-advised, property owners.
I predict that it will be difficult to bring a successful takings suit against the Department of Ecology.
We generally look to attorneys for legal advice. As Hodges said, “”The ruling is not a big deal for citizens wanting to bring a challenge like (the plaintiffs) did…. The Supreme Court’s ruling simply instructs land owners in (the plaintiff’s) position to name Ecology as a defendant and assert a constitutional violation in lieu of RCW 82.02.020.” This ruling had nothing to do with subverting the “takings” clause of the Washington State Constitution.
The authors of the Shoreline Management Act, enacted in 1971, required/allowed local jurisdictions to author their own shoreline regulations. This was a good decision at the time, because active industrial cities like Tacoma, Seattle, Everett, and Bremerton had BIG problems to solve, while rural areas like Bainbridge Island generally did not. The Wycoff plant is a significant historical exception and we are dealing with it.
Flash forward 40 years, and we have a situation where local governments are drowning in an expensive, multi-year regulatory process that must be revisited every 7-8 years. The cost in time, treasure and angst has grown to unbearable levels.
I believe that the Legislature should revisit the SMA. Regulatory authority and responsibility should be moved to the state level where local jurisdictions could request additions or exemptions for special circumstances.
A peer-review panel of tenured academics should look at the science and make appropriate recommendations. Volunteer “scientists” and highly paid consultants should be eliminated from the process. A viewing of the video from our city council’s study session on 8/16th makes the reasons for this crystal clear.
With policy and politics centered in Olympia and Lacey, lobbying and lawsuits would have their rightful focus.
The SMA provided for local control of the SMP because local conditions of development, use and the environment vary dramatically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Zoning and development codes, as with the SMP, should always be in local control.
I agree that zoning and development codes SHOULD be in local control, but it appears that the Court disagrees. The current situation with the SMA and GMA “allowing” some level of local control has created a situation where inordinate amounts of time and money are wasted. Perhaps the Legislature can find a way to fix the mess that they, the governor’s DOE and the Court have created. What are the odds?
The case was about whether the SMP provisions were so oppressive as to constitute an illegal parcel tax imposed by the County. Not sure why the Court went where it did . . . .