We still have to fight 3 bills we fought and won the fight last session, let's make sure legislators hear our objections again! These bills weaponize the Growth Management Act!
Comment links provided, you can also call the legislative hotline!
800 562 6000
Improving the state's climate response through updates to the state's comprehensive planning framework.
Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights Opposes HB 1099 I am writing on behalf of Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights to ask you, as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, to vote NO on HB1099 and ensure this bill will not be funded.
The costs to citizens of the bill’s implementation would be twofold, as taxpayers the bill would require them to fund their own economic demise. Secondly, climate change mitigation would increase costs to every property owner or project, causing delays in permitting and on the ground improvements during extreme inflationary times, with little or no impact on climate, or environmental protections.
This bill requires a multi-faceted, costly, top-heavy implementation that would extend state funding far beyond what the out-of-date and critically underestimated fiscal notes imply. This costly environmental wish list is out of reach fiscally before it could be implemented or put in place. There are no sunset provisions in the bill for achieving the stated goals.
This bill would make the Growth Management Act encumber property owners by adding additional regulatory takings under the guise of the climate needs of the earth and people, yet the needs are ill defined and do not carry the crucial nexus and proportionality required of statutes to ensure taxpayer provided funds are well spent.
Many regulations already encompass climate ideas, but this would require planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled, zoning downsizing, climate mitigation.
A climate change and resiliency element would be added to the featured main goals of the GMA, including reducing green-house gasses with specific targeted goals in certain cities and counties. It requires Ecology to make like changes to the Shoreline Management Act and flood control plans.
We oppose funding or passage of this out of touch overly ambitious bill.
Promoting salmon recovery through revisions to the state's comprehensive planning framework.
Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights OPPOSES 1117, the imbalance this bill proposes would dilute the importance of GMA goals, by adding and additional goal to the GMA that would cause confusion, arbitrary decision making, and litigation with the bill's ambiguous language.
Replacing protection of fish life with "net ecological gain" would become the focus of regulation and would result in litigation due to arbitrary and capricious situational decision making and enforcement. The bill increases the possibility of unattainable mitigation and project denial.
Net ecological gain is a standard that would become an obstacle to improvements to habitat that could otherwise be made under the current law, we suggest the bill would result in ecological harm rather than improvement and so should be denied passage.
Concerning the effective date of certain actions taken under the growth management act.
Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights opposes this bill which intends to repeal the vesting doctrine as related to the Growth Management Act based on what some legislators perceive as a need due to climate change.
The bill would allow for, almost invite litigation through the growth management hearings board, and delay permitting of projects until after a hearings board decision is made.
Provides that the effective date of certain actions taken under the Growth Management Act (GMA) will be the later of the two following dates: 60 days after publication of notice of the action, or if a petition for review to the Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) is timely filed, the date on which the Board's final order is issued.
Includes, in the list of actions under the GMA subject to the effective dates established in the bill: expansion of an Urban Growth Area; removal of the designation of agricultural, forest, or mineral resource lands; creation or expansion of a limited area of more intensive rural development; establishment of a new fully contained community; and creation or expansion of a master planned resort.
This bill undermines existing law, can cause years of delay to projects and creates uncertainty in planning in terms of time and money. The bill interferes with local planning under the GMA and eliminates the presumption of validity by planning counties.