Washblog

http://www.kirotv.com/surveypopup/news/10060869/detail.html?p=news

I'm with Obama

by willisreed on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 11:54:14 AM PST

---

Repeat: VOTE NO ON I-933

Thanks BPalmer, for your insight. Them big bad gubernments are tookin my jobs and the roof from over my head!. What irks me the most about your "argument" is the sheer idiocy of its logic.

Your home will stay where it is if you VOTE NO ON 933, in fact, this initiative has nothing to do with present housing. 933 will take away the government's ability to manage land that is vital to the common good. By government, we mean the people's common ownership of our political system.

According to the yeson933 site, the government can only regulate land equally across jurisdictions. This means private landowners can build up their property how ever they see fit unless it violates basic, broad-scope regulations - such as restricting sex offenders. However, a BIG however, is many regulations are specific for very good reasons. Ground water pollution for instance comes from very specific industries on very specific land, yet it affects everyone. The same for private forest management as drainages and erosion are common concerns.

The basic theory behind the "property rights" initiative is purely based on subversive interpretation of Lockean principles. It is a cowardly examination of our founding fathers' intellect and has not just reason to be put shoveled to us as "fairness". Classical theory was developed in the face of monarchs restricting people from using their labor to extract "nature's bounty". We are not facing a monarchy of regulation. Now a few corporatist ideologues are complaining about the government protecting the common good! Locke states in his Second Treatise, Chapter Five, that we are allowed to extract what we need for survival and "whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others."

The founding thought of this country clearly had a concern for protecting our lands so that other can enjoy the benefits of them. Of course, we now know that this political theory developed into the predatory nature of American commerce because we assumed that there was plenty of nature to go around. Now we know that we must be deeply concerned with our environment and how our ecosystems integrate with one another. Preventing the government from pursuing the common interest over a sliver of our property rights is akin to allowing the King to undermine our basic human needs. We need regulations to protect the land that may be of one interest to a misanthrope and quite a different interest to the common good. 933 is the monkey wrench to our system and founding theory, it is truly the "kick-me sign" on our state.

To address the yeson933 site directly, I've responded to their government "abuses" listed on their site (I'll warn you that I take this seriously and will let off a bit of steam on this one):

King County has adopted a "65-10" plan requiring some property owners to leave 65 percent of their property in native vegetation, and to have "impervious surfaces" on no more than 10 percent. Impervious surfaces, in King County, include dirt and gravel roads.

The key is some property owners. Who would want to pave more than 10% of their land? Certainly not farmers, but rather the big box retailers that need big flat parking lots for big fat Americans.

Thurston County is considering a set of regulations that would impose 300-foot buffers along waterways; require some property owners to fence themselves out of part of their property for wildlife habitat, restrict gardening and agricultural activities, limit the use of some generators, and damage use and value of property by not permitting additional structures on some properties.

This seems pretty obvious to me, but why would you fence yourself off of the river? This proposed regulation simply means that you cannot use pesticides, destroy vegetation, or construct your building on sensitive waterways. Listen, the Northwest is the Northwest because of our incredible water systems and preventing overzealous property owners from destroying our common interest is a perfectly legitimate "intrusion" of government (remember, the government of the people).

Clark County has proposed to set aside habitat for banana slugs.

Seems insignificant to some, but our fragile ecosystems are always integrated.

Jefferson County has proposed 450-foot "default" wetland buffers, threatening the flexibility farmers need to stay in business.

Again, same as protecting our waterways, we need to protect our wetlands. They're not just pretty, they're vital to the sustainability of natural lands. They're also threatened by chemicals and urban sprawl. Besides, most of Jefferson County is a National Park, the West of it is remote with very little agriculture, and the remainder to the East is threatened by the booming metropolis of Seattle! The small farmers do need to be protected, but not from wetlands - they're just as vital as the farmer's pitchfork.

The City of Bellevue considered banning tree topping, which would have limited the view from many properties.

This one is the cream of the crop. Fuck the trees, I want my view. I am so tired of the selfishness of people who only want their view to be the best. This is a systemic problem in our society directly created by the over-competitiveness of our markets. We don't value the tree, we value seeing the trees across the water (or parking lot).

The state Supreme Court has upheld a growth hearings board order for Ferry County to adopt habitat restrictions for certain animals that have not been seen in Ferry County.

We discovered a new mouse in the Southwest just this last week. We have successfully introduced wolves into Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. Just because animals "have not been seen" in Ferry County does not mean they're not there. Nor does it mean we should destroy their habitat if they're not. Habitats are shared by many animals and it's boloney to assume we can live without them!

Remember, VOTE NO ON 933 and TELL YOUR FRIENDS TO VOTE NO ON 933

by JesseNelson on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 04:27:58 PM PST

---

... it wouldn't be any more odious than it is now.

Classical theory was developed in the face of monarchs restricting people from using their labor to extract "nature's bounty".

Indeed! And this continues: patents are exactly the direct descendants of this. Property ownership, meted out to selectmen or trusted squires isn't much different.

If we do away with the State's interference, then what are we really talking about here?

Does 933 allow me to go set up a tent on my neighbor's lawn? Maybe cut down his trees to keep my house warm? Where does it end?

Or is the State in fact supposed to continue to enforce some "rights"? If this passes, could it end up being the Republican kooks' worst nightmare: creating out of thin air the "communist menace" which evaporated in a land of plenty?

Government sucks. The thing which sucks worse is people who think that they can simultaneously make government do their bidding and shield them from the maxim of "best intentions gone astray".

by m3047 on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 11:14:31 PM PST

---

It's kind of scary to think the government can legally take the roof out from over your head.

Check out this website for more information on why Washington needs to support, I-933.

http://yeson933.com/

Don't let them take out homes away from us!!!

Vote yes on Initiative 933.

by BPalmer on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 12:33:13 PM PST

---

You guys are the ones who are radically misinformed!!!!

Thanks to eminent domain, there will be a Starbucks on every corner.

Too bad I won't have a home to drink it at.

I'm still planning to vote YES on Initiative 933.

by BPalmer on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 08:38:17 AM PST

---