This was too good not to share. Read the op-ed.
Quick! What’s the first thing you think of when someone mentions Washington State?
Did you answer rain? Of course you did. You’ve all read Twilight, right? I mean, seriously, ferns grow on trees here. And you’d better pray that you don’t get lost in the woods, because the moss grows on all sides of the tree trunks.
Even in the arid part of the state east of the Cascade Range, you don’t have to go far to find water. The Columbia River not only provides clean hydro power, it’s also the backbone of the Columbia Basin Project, capable of irrigating over a million acres of otherwise useless land.
Because Washington has been so abundantly blessed with water, it makes an October ruling by the State Supreme Court even more baffling than it might otherwise be. The Hirst ruling deprives rural property owners of the rightful use of their land by restricting their ability to drill water wells.
Here’s an overview of the Hirst ruling.
The Washington State Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 6, 2016 that counties planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) must make their own determination of available water before issuing a building permit.
The case, Whatcom County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (also known as Hirst), overturns a 2015 Court of Appeals decision that held that Whatcom County could rely on the Department of Ecology’s determinations of available water to allow the use of wells (considered permit-exempt under the law) in basins not closed by Ecology.
Essentially, a county planning under GMA cannot issue a building permit that would depend on an exempt well—even if Ecology’s rule allows exempt wells—without showing that the well will not impair certain rivers and streams or a senior water right.
Not unsurprisingly, the Hirst ruling has virtually halted building in rural areas dependent for water on drilled wells.
Yesterday I asked you to consider whether the government could tax people out of homes outside the reach of economically feasible public transportation as a means to achieve the stated goal of having the majority of people in the state living and working in “places that both support bicycling and walking for shorter trips and provide reliable and convenient public transportation that meets mobility needs for longer trips.”
Now I ask you to consider the Hirst ruling in that light. Property without access to water is unfit for human habitation.
I’ve said for many years that real property owners are only renting from the government. If you don’t believe that’s true, try not paying your property taxes for a couple of years. Now that they’ve made themselves the de facto owners of your property, they’re telling you exactly how you can use it. That’s their right as your landlord, isn’t it?
But beyond that, they’re asserting their right to control your access to a basic necessity of life – water. That scares me!
No one should be able to do that and I’m therefore very grateful that there are legislators in Olympia who agree and sponsored SB 5239. The bill has passed the State Senate and passage is now in the hands of the Democrat controlled House. If you don’t think the government should be able to withhold water from property owners, it can’t hurt to contact your State Representative and let them know.
I consider Seattle to be my hometown, having grown up in unincorporated King County with a Seattle address. The region is abundantly blessed with natural beauty and a mild climate, so it’s no mystery why people want to live and work there. Seattle also boasts a robust economy, in spite of a city council that at times seems perversely focused on creating a hostile environment for business.
The first blow to business was the 2014 ordinance raising the minimum wage in yearly steps to $15 per hour by 2017 for large businesses and by 2021 for small businesses. Seattle defines as large any business that employs more than 500 people nationwide.
However, local franchises for national chains such as McDonald’s are also classified as large under the ordinance, regardless of the number of people actually employed by the franchisee. Too bad, franchise holders, that you can’t be trusted to determine how much you can afford to pay your 75 employees. Seattle knows best.
(Slightly off topic: It’s evident that raising the minimum wage is a really effective way to redistribute wealth…from the low wage workers who will lose their jobs to the low wage workers lucky enough to retain their jobs. It also chills job growth, even in really hot markets like Seattle. But enough of that.)
The second and third blows came in quick succession. First, in August of 2016, the Council passed an ordinance that requires landlords choose on a first-come, first-served basis from among the pool of qualified candidates. The reasoning behind this is to prevent discrimination against renters with “alternative sources of income.” So much for being able to select the prospective renter most likely to, you know, pay rent.
But it’s also too bad for you, single mom, trying to rent your basement unit in order to help pay your mortgage, if the first qualified applicant can’t seem to take his eyes off your six-year-old daughter and sets off all your parental alarm bells. Seattle knows best.
Then, in September of 2016, came the ordinance dictating how retail and food service businesses schedule their employees. The ordinance includes a provision that requires employers to pay additional “predictability pay” if, for example, they have to call in a substitute employee at the last minute due to illness. Too bad, business owners, if it’s a slow day and you have to pay previously scheduled employees to stand around doing nothing; it’s either that be subject to predictability pay. Because Seattle knows best.
I wonder…How much control over day-to-day operations can government seize from business owners before they lose effective ownership of their own businesses? It’s a question Seattle seems determined to find an answer for.
I’m sure you all remember the fuss Senate Democrats made over the nomination of Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education. Some of the most commonly voiced criticisms stemmed from DeVos’ lack of personal experience with public schools, either as a student or professional educator and her personal advocacy for charter schools and school vouchers.
You’d think that Democrats and other leftists would be champions of charter schools and school vouchers. Instead, one of the first things Barack Obama did as president was to end the voucher program for Washington, D.C., students, despite evidence that the program was improving performance. The Democrat-controlled Congress was silent.
It’s not that Senators don’t love private schools. In the 114th Congress, 26 of 100 Senators attended private high schools, compared to about 8% of the general population. Six of ten Democrats who questioned DeVos in committee prior to her confirmation vote were, themselves, the beneficiaries of public school educations, chose private schools for their own children, or have grandchildren attending private schools. In 2009, 45% of Senators elected to send at least one of their own children to private school.
Why is it, then, that Democrats and leftists are so opposed to charter schools and school vouchers? It could be that they’re just that beholden to the National Education Association.
Or it could be this:
Wealth has it’s privileges and those privileges are not for you and especially not for your children. If allowed a superior education*, the next generation of riffraff might presume to compete with the children of the upper crust to become the power brokers of tomorrow and that cannot be tolerated.
The Democrats and their leftist masters rely on a permanent underclass to maintain their power base. Anything that challenges that must be stopped by any means possible and than includes sacrificing future generations on the altar of public schools.
* Another advantage of the most elite private school education is the opportunity to build networks among the already-advantaged.
Back in November, Washington State voters approved I-1433 to eventually raise the state’s minimum wage to $13.50 an hour. I wrote about the voter’s remorse some people are experiencing as a result here.
Statewide, the measure passed with 57.42% voting for to 42.58% against, but in Eastern Washington, the measure failed with near-mirror image numbers, 57.72% voting against to 42.28 % for.* In King County, the county with the highest percentage of votes for, it passed with 69.84% voting for and 30.16% voting against. In Lincoln County, the county with the highest percentage of votes against, it was another near-mirror image, with 69.79% voting against and 30.21% voting for.
All 20 counties in Eastern Washington (plus three in Western Washington) voted the measure down. The 16 remaining counties in Western Washington voted to pass the measure. And so, of course, the measure passed. This isn’t surprising; it’s typical that the two halves of the state disagree on ballot measures and candidates elected at the state level, including U.S. Senators. Roughly 2/3 of Washington voters live on the west side of the state; so while I do find it interesting how the results are mirrored, it’s not a mystery.
Now here is the what I find to be discouraging and depressing.
In raw numbers, 687,996 King County residents voted for I-1433. In the 20 counties of Eastern Washington, 642,913 residents voted for and against the measure.
So there were more “yes” votes in King County than the total number of votes cast in Eastern Washington. Let me repeat that…more “yes” votes in King County alone than the total number of “yes” and “no” votes in Eastern Washington.
This is a real problem.
The domination of statewide elections by King County voters – and in Washington this includes the election of our Supreme Court justices – leads to policies that are at times misguided and at other times downright hostile to the interests of the eastern portion of the State.
The minimum wage initiative is a case in point. It may make sense in King county (although my personal feeling is that it’s poor policy even there), with employers like Microsoft, Amazon, and Boeing, where many employees are already earning over the minimum wage. In the small towns of Eastern Washington, it may lead to unacceptable job losses in small towns where the economy is not so robust.
I mentioned the Washington Supreme Court. Back in October they handed down the Hirst Ruling, which, by depriving rural property owners of the ability to drill water wells, denies them the rightful use of their property.
If you clicked through to the article about the Hirst ruling, you’ll have seen the reference to the Growth Management Act. The GMA requires rural Lincoln County to follow all the same planning procedures as King County. This is despite Lincoln having a population density of four people per square mile with a population loss of just over 2% between 2010 and 2015 while King County has a population density of 938 people per square mile and population growth of nearly 10% over the same time period.
King County residents vote with a complete lack of regard for the issues facing residents of rural areas in Eastern Washington. That’s fine. They have issues of their own and shouldn’t be expected to lay them aside in favor of someone else’s; however, it would be nice if they’d occasionally stop to consider that the answer to every urban problem need not be forced on rural areas.
Instead of voting for a statewide flat-rate minimum wage, they could have waited for a minimum wage tied to cost of living. They could have looked at court decisions like Hirst, recognized that the court had over-stepped its bounds and replaced some of the justices in November (it’s more than likely that most King County residents have never heard of the Hirst ruling). Or the Growth Management Act could have been amended to reflect the idea that counties that aren’t experiencing explosive growth probably don’t need to manage it in quite the same way as counties that are.
This year, two Eastern Washington lawmakers introduced legislation to split Washington into two states. You may laugh, but the frustration that Eastern Washington residents feel is real. We’re outnumbered, so the solution is going to have to come from, you guessed it…King County. Wish us luck.
*I made this calculation from numbers I entered by hand into an Excel spreadsheet; therefore they may be very slightly off due to data entry errors.