You Were Expecting Flaming Dog Crap?

Jacob Sullum | February 28, 2005

King County, Washington, has taken a stand against weed eradiction. Unfortunately, it's not the sort practiced by the Drug Enforcement Administration. The county's Critical Areas Ordinance requires rural property owners to leave up to 65 percent of their land untouched, a policy that has prevented the off-limits acres from being used for any productive purpose and allowed invasive plants to run wild. On Saturday a group of landowners protested the ordinance by leaving a bundle of weeds on the doorstep of County Administrator Ron Sims' home. Sims can't very well complain that they violated his property rights.

[Thanks to John Quel for the link.]

Comments

sage|2.28.05 @ 12:43PM|#

Mr. Sullum,

FYI, the King County Executive's name is Ron Sims.

|2.28.05 @ 1:13PM|#

Ron Sims could very well be the most corrupt politician in America. The "man" is a real scumbag.

|2.28.05 @ 1:38PM|#

Sage, thanks for the correction. I've fixed the name.

|2.28.05 @ 1:48PM|#

If I were those landowners, I would've left flaming dog crap instead.

Mike|2.28.05 @ 1:49PM|#

allowed invasive plants to run wild

I thought we weren't supposed to worrry about invasive plants.

|2.28.05 @ 1:56PM|#

I see a lot of crabgrass and dandelion seeds blowing mysteriously in the direction of Mr. Sims' yard.

fyodor|2.28.05 @ 2:01PM|#

Maybe these folks should complain to the legislature that passed the Critical Areas Ordinance, as well as the constituencies to which the legislators were responding rather than just the guy charged with enforcing the law.

Mike, thanks for the irony there, though I'm sure it works both ways. Government restrictions that work against the interests of environmentalists? How could it be? :-)

|2.28.05 @ 2:09PM|#

Stevo,

Is that eco-terrorism, conservative-style? I love it!!!

|2.28.05 @ 3:13PM|#

Perserving the natural state of the land doesn't mean allowing invasive species to run wild - What exactly does the ordinance say?
It seems to me the purpose is simply to keep the land undeveloped.

|2.28.05 @ 3:20PM|#

Took me thirty minutes to get the headline. How far I've come...

|2.28.05 @ 3:24PM|#

So essentially, if I'm a farmer and want 65 acres of farmland, I have to buy 100 acres. Brilliant. It's just like another tax, except it doesn't finance shit.

|2.28.05 @ 3:26PM|#

I just read it agian -- does that say 65% UNused? I apparantly got it backwards.

Maybe rules really are made to be broken.

|2.28.05 @ 8:15PM|#

Smacky, don't you mean for the emphasis to be on the word "I"? This has an odd ring to my ears:

-- If I were those landowners, I would've left flaming dog crap instead.

Seems this is what you intended:

-- If I were those landowners, I would've left flaming dog crap instead.

Ron Hardin|2.28.05 @ 8:49PM|#

Ontario has a law (1974) requiring ``Every person in possession of land shall destroy all noxious weeds thereon.'' As of my printing of _Ontario Weeds_ there were 23 species, including many rather nice wildflowers like Chickory, wild carrot, Yellow rocket, and poison ivy.

|2.28.05 @ 8:50PM|#

Smacky, ignore my previous comment. I now realize you were responding to the title of this post: "You Were Expecting Flaming Dog Crap?"

To which you appropriately responded, "If I were those landowners, I would've left flaming dog crap instead."

I had not noticed the post title; hence, my intitial reaction to the placement of your bolding.

|3.1.05 @ 2:02PM|#

Glad that Reason finally picked up on this. It's got a lot of people here in Washington upset.

The 'noxious weeds' aspect to this is really something of a red herring. I view it more as the flip side of eminent domain. Instead of the state deciding they want to build something more profitable where you are and seizing your property they are decreeing, from an environmental justification, that you not do not develop anything on 65% of your land. You will still pay full property taxes and there is none of that pesky compensation involved, while you now play the unwilling role of park ranger. Sweet deal for the state. And of course none of the urban property owners will be compelled to tear down 65% of their developed areas and restore it to 'original' nature (whatever that is).

They are already trying to institute CAO statewide. Check out the email below:


From: Smith, Nichole On Behalf Of Schindler, Rep. Lynn
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 8:52 AM
To: Smith, Nichole
Subject: Property Rights Update
TO: The Washington Property Rights Coalition
FR: Representative Lynn Schindler, Ranking Republican - House Committee on Local Government



URGENT - On Monday, February 28th, the House Local Government Committee will hold a public hearing at 1:30 pm on HB 2077 - Requiring example critical areas policies or regulations. This bill appears to be a precursor to a statewide Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO).

The bill requires the state Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development; Department of Fish & Wildlife; and/or the Department of Ecology to develop a model critical areas ordinance that local governments can adopt. This could lead to the King County CAO being adopted as the statewide model. While the bill does not require local governments to adopt the model policy, many most likely will to avoid litigation.

This proposal will create a one-size-fits all approach to critical areas and most likely will include large buffers that take away more land. Please contact your legislators and tell them you want local governments to decide critical areas policies, not the state and oppose HB 2077.

Click on the following link below and enter the bill number to read a copy of this legislation.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/bills.cfm