Dec. 21, 2006
Important Growth Management decision issued by state Supreme Court
Today, the Washington Supreme Court issued a decision that King County regulations to protect critical areas are not subject to a referendum. The vote was seven to two. The decision was issued in the case of 1000 Friends of Washington v. Rodney McFarland.
In 2004, the King County Council adopted three ordinances to implement a State Growth Management Act requirement to protect critical areas. Opponents of the ordinances filed petitions to subject the ordinances to a referendum. The King County Superior Court found in January 2005 that a referendum election could not be held. The Supreme Court’s decision today affirmed the superior court’s decision.
"I am gratified by this decision," said King County Executive Ron Sims. "Property owners, builders, and the public benefit from the certainty this decision brings.
"Our flexible approach to implementation of critical area protections is working well for the public," Sims added. "Many property owners have found that a farm, forest or rural stewardship plan lets them achieve their goals while protecting the natural resources we all value.
"These regulations have been in effect for nearly two years," said Sims. "Despite the claims of opponents, the regulations have not stopped development in King County. This past year has been one of the busiest yet."
In response to public concerns about the new regulations, Development and Environmental Services (DDES) and Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) have implemented several programs to assist rural property owners.
King County was joined by 1000 Friends of Washington and the Center for Environmental Law and Policy in the original lawsuit. At the Supreme Court the Washington Environmental Council, Association of Washington Cities, Washington State Department of Community, Trade & Economic Development and Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties all filed supporting briefs.
"The MBA is pleased by today's Supreme Court's ruling. While some people may believe that some parts of the CAO may be unnecessary or excessively restrictive, today's ruling assures that all ordinances regulating land development are the result of a legislative process designed to consider the interests of all members of the public in a thoughtful and comprehensive manner," stated Sam Anderson, Executive Director of Master Builders King and Snohomish Counties.
"The Supreme Court's opinion recognized that these decisions require extensive scientific study, broad deliberations, and carefully balancing of the rights of all property owners" said Tim Trohimovich, Futurewise's Planning Director. "This decision will help King County and all of our communities protect properties from flooding and other natural hazards, protect drinking water sources, and help maintain water quality."
"The Center for Environmental Law and Policy joined the suit to reinforce the statewide public interest in protecting critical areas," said Shirley Nixon, Senior Counsel for the Center. "We are pleased that the Court affirmed that when the people of the state require action from a local legislative body, that action is not subject to a local veto via referendum."