Does any of this sound familiar?  If so is it time to take some action individually to protect your rights?  Much like the intended and not yet imposed Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area.  It is not too late to educate yourself and speak out!  

Property Rights Are Not Secure in Washington By Preston Drew, President, Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights   In 2008 the Washington State Court of Appeals threw out the most controversial section of the 2004 King County Critical Areas Ordinance, which was a provision that called for the set aside of as much as 65% of a rural landowner’s property when applying for a land use permit. The Supreme Court then refused to hear King County’s appeal, thus rendering the Appeals Court decision settled law. Yet the King County administration refuses to change the code to reflect the Appeals Court decision. When queried recently the reply was “Oh, we just don’t enforce that clause”. Why? Aren’t county officials obligated to have the code reflect the law?

There is a proposal for the Casitas Municipal Water District to use eminent domain to take over the Golden State franchise in the Ojai Valley. Casitas has not even released results of a study of the issue. But those concerned about under-estimated costs and the feasibility of a takeover are considering action in opposition to the takeover. The California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, California's leading watchdog and advocate against eminent domain abuse has made a decision to oppose the take-over.

Discussion List—December 5th, 2013

SeaTac Election Discussion
http://marketwage.org/

King County CAPR's Thursday, December 6th meeting featured speaker Daniel Himebaugh, of the Pacific Legal Foundation, who spoke about The Precautionary Principle vs. Essential Nexus. An in depth discussion on the over-dependance on the theory of the precautionary principle of many in government and others making decisions regarding the environment and land use. Here is a link to allow reading of the Paper written by Brian Hodges and Daniel Himebaugh:  papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1533574 , thanks to the Social Science Research Network for providing this online content.

Don't Forget to Mark Your Calendar!

CAPR 2013 Banquet

Property Rights- The ONLY Sustainable Solution

Saturday, March 16^th, 2013, 5:00pm

Southcenter DoubleTree Guest Suites

16500 Southcenter Parkway

Seattle,WA 98188

This year the keynote speaker will be Dave Hunnicutt, of Oregonians in Action. 

The Fiscal Cliff and the Showdown Between Redistribution and Property Rights

by Tim Kowal on December 6, 2012 As the so-called fiscal cliff so-called negotiations plod ahead, I’ve been contemplating whether the President’s sought-after redistribution really is a mortal blow to those who believe in economic liberty–and to the GOP, who at least pays more lip service to that principle than their counterparts.  Those who believe there is a right in our property and income believe ...read more ordinary-gentlemen.com

By Eric Boehm | PA Independent FORFEITURE: In a decision filed last month, Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini called the state’s civil asset forfeiture law “state-sanctioned theft” and ordered a lower court to re-examine a recent forfeiture case in Centre County. HARRISBURG – A Commonwealth Court ruling is being hailed as a victory for property rights and a small blow against civil asset forfeiture laws, which allow the state to seize private property that may be connected to a crime. In a decision filed last month, Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini called the state’s civil asset forfeiture law “state-sanctioned theft” and ordered...read more...  paindependent.com/

If the federal government destroyed your property by flooding it, you’d probably expect that they would be required by the U.S. Constitution to compensate you for your property loss. Remarkably, in the first of a trio of property rights cases to be decided by the Supreme Court this term, the federal government argued that it had no obligation to compensate property owners in such scenarios. On Tuesday, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court rejected the government’s theory – an important victory for those who support property rights. We’ve blogged recently about the other two cases in the Court’s Takings Clause trilogy...read more... oregonbusinessreport.com