Commissioner proposes "end run" around wishes of people - uses "resolution" instead of ordinance to "save" open spaces

by Sue Forde
Citizen Review Online

Clallam County, WA – December 16, 2001 – Two county commissioners plan to circumvent the wishes of the voters of Clallam County next Tuesday by passing a “resolution” instead of (or possibly in addition to) an “ordinance” to implement a scheme to buy up private property and development rights in so-called “open spaces, farmland and agricultural lands.”

In 1995, the voters of the county spoke loud and clear with an overwhelming “no” vote to the idea (84% against) at the polls, saying they did not want their tax dollars used to buy up property development rights from private landowners.

On Tuesday, Dec. 11, the commissioner’s boardroom was filled to overflowing as approximately 200 people came to hear and testify for and against the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Steve Tharinger had proposed to increase property taxes across the entire county by 6.25 cents per $1,000 in order to buy up development rights in the Sequim-Dungeness Valley.  Joining him was Commissioner Mike Doherty.  Standing alone on the side of the people was Commissioner Mike Chapman.  It was, to say the least, a heated issue, with letters pro and con filling the local weekly newspaper.

After four hours of listening to the people, the decision to pass the ordinance was postponed until Dec. 18.  It must be passed in 2001 in order to gain the federal and state grants next year to build the fund to buy much more land than the approximate $250,000. in increased taxes would buy.  In addition, the commissioners could use those taxes to float a bond, which would place the currently debt-free county into long term debt.

Because Clallam County is a “home rule charter” county, any ordinance that is passed could be repealed by the people under the right of referendum.

It would appear that Tharinger wants to completely circumvent the people.  Whether or not the ordinance passes at the next meeting, he has proposed a “Resolution” to transfer $250,000 of the Capital Facilities Fund of Clallam County to start up the program.  This would give the county the ability to raise grant money from federal and state tax dollars over the next year.

RIGHT TO BUY UP LAND

There are several interesting aspects to the state law which is referenced in the resolution under which the commissioners will act:

RCW 84.34.210 states, in part, that the county may “acquire by purchase…the fee simple or any less interest…to protect, preserve…limit the future use of…selected open space land…for public use or enjoyment.”  This flies in the face of what Tharinger and his friends have repeatedly told news media – that all they would be buying is “property development rights.”

RCW 84.34.220 stats, in part, that a county “may specifically purchase or otherwise acquire…rights in perpetuity [forever] to future development of any open space land, farm and agricultural land…. Such developmental rights shall be termed ‘conservation futures’….under the terms of purchase…the county…may forbid or restrict building thereon, or may require that improvements cannot be made without county…or nonprofit nature conservancy corporation…permission.

RCW 84.34.230 states that “a county may levy an amount not to exceed 6.25 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation…”

RCW 84.34.240 states that “any board of county commissioners may establish by resolution a special fund which may be termed a conservation futures fund to which it may credit all taxes levied pursuant to RCW 84.34.230…Nothing…shall be construed as limiting in any manner methods and funds otherwise available to a county for financing the acquisition of such rights and interests in real property.”

ROBBING FROM ONE TO SET UP THE OTHER

Questionably, the resolution to be passed will take money from the county budget that has been allocated to the Capital Facilities Fund and move it over to form the new Conservation Futures Fund.  The county had a shortage in its budget of $1.2 million, and in order to balance it, several county employees are taking shorter hours, and holding the line in an increase in pay.  Much-needed services, like police protection, stand to suffer.

Yet, Commissioners Tharinger and Doherty, contrary to the demands of their constituents, are taking money and moving it to set up this new fund to buy up more land.  (Clallam County has only approximately 13% of the land available for private development, and that stands to be reduced greatly as more land and/or development rights to the land, are removed.)

  TAXES WILL INCREASE TO COVER THE COST

Taxpayers who voted against the idea of paying more in taxes to buy up land or property development rights will have their taxes increased anyway.  The next commissioner’s meeting will set the rate for 2002 property taxes – more than likely a rate that will increase to cover the county deficit.  Instead of taking $250,000 from the Capital Fund and giving it to the Conservation Futures Fund, if there is that much money lying around not needed, why not reduce the citizens’ taxes instead of increasing them?  Or, why not take that money from the Capital Fund and move it to increase the sheriff’s deputies – that department needs four more officers to patrol for citizens’ safety.  Animal control is also in need of funding.  These are issues of public safety.

WHO GETS THE LAND AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS?

  The state law repeatedly refers to “nonprofit nature conservancy corporations” acquiring the title to these lands.  In Clallam County, the designated “nature conservancy corporation” is the North Olympic Land Trust, known for acquiring title to property along the Dungeness River.  A question arises as to whether this corporation will be handed over the title to these properties; and if so, will they, like other nature conservancy corporations, in turn deed it over to another entity?  They have the right to do so under the law.

WHO STANDS TO PROFIT BY THIS “RESOLUTION”?

A question arises as to who stands to profit by this ordinance (if passed) or resolution.  One man I know owns 40 acres of marshland (unusable).  Yet he would qualify to sell “development rights” at a premium price.  The people’s tax money would be used to benefit one individual, with no “return” on their “investment”.  It’s no wonder the taxpayers have said “no” to this sham.

JUST THE BEGINNING

There is a move to buy up more and more land from individuals and place it into “public” ownership.   The “advisory board” to be set up will make recommendations for “projects to be funded,” and will “develop strategic, long-term plans for the program.”   

One of the goals of the Communist Manifesto is: The theory of the Communists may be summed up in a single phrase: Abolition of private property (page 82.)

Contact your county commissioners and let them know your thoughts on this issue.  The workshop on Monday will be discussing this issue, and it stands to be passed on Tuesday.  Show up for both meetings if you can. The work session starts at 9 a.m. on Monday, Dec. 17th at the county courthouse, meeting room 160. The county commissioners meeting is on Tuesday, Dec. 18th beginning at 10 a.m. at the county courthouse, room 160.

Clallam County
223 East 4th Street, Port Angeles, Washington 98362
(360) 417-2233 | FAX (360) 417-2493
commissioners@co.clallam.wa.us

Monday's agenda

Tuesday's agenda

Proposed 2002 budget comments by County Commissioners

 

Back to Current Edition Citizen Review Archive LINKS Search This Site