|
|
|
|
Letter from the President
By Robert W. Thorpe, AICP, President, Puget Sound Section, Washington APA
Greetings from your new President. It is an honor to serve as President, after many years of "kibitzing" from the sidelines, Richard Hart convinced me that I should get involved. Little did I know that the election to Vice President meant you were the incoming President - the learning axiom is, "Never trust an Oklahoma Sooner!"
From this introduction, I trust you will see that PSS-APA has important goals, and having fun during the year is one of them. At the recent dinner for the Board Members Paul Krauss, Auburn Planning Director, stepped down after an excellent year of growth, a great Christmas Party, and continued success of Ladd Brown Bags. I would like to carry that forward, and the past success in seminars including the Legal Seminar, which I trust I will bring some expertise to for the Spring Event. Also, many thanks to Liz for her outstanding effort as a Board Member and Secretary, and congratulations to Hiller West of Monroe, as next year's president.
Goals for the Chapter continue to be education, member involvement, financial stability, and promotion of ethical standards in both the public and private planning arenas.
This first letter and a companion article on Land Economics and Highest and Best Use are to set my tone for an educational discussion this year. Many of the people who have served on the PSS Board are from the public sector. I agreed to run to bring a private sector viewpoint, and some education on an area where I have gained expertise after 40 years of practice in the state, that of Land Economics, Highest and Best Use, Taking, and impacts on property utilization and valuation. My observations are intended to be somewhat provocative, and engender discussion with pending referenda on property rights, continued discussion of how critical areas regulation should be formed, and the ever-challenging requirements of attempting to provide affordable housing and maintain a certain level of buildable lands within the Urban Growth Areas. I believe this discussion will be "leading edge" in Washington State this year.
My view is that the Growth Management Act has 13 separate goals. If one reads the Act, these goals are to be balanced. No one goal should receive a higher priority nor preempt others. Therefore, environmental and critical areas are balanced with economics, employment, land use, carrying capacity, and all other goals. We trust that all professional planners, both public and private, will recognize this tension over-balancing these goals. I view this tension like the Great Intercontinental Plates off our shore - bringing great pressure from different angles. If these plates continue to move the way they should, in concert, we will avoid great upheavals, and significant impact on the environment and the State's citizens. In the planning profession, tension appears to be increasing, due to very detailed discussions over critical areas, ordinances, and their effect upon buildable lands. For example, if one views the accessibility of housing, for our profession, as well as teachers, firefighters, and others, planners in the $35,000 - to $80,000 have a significant challenge in finding entry-level housing, or affordable housing, not only for us, but for all citizens.
Recent discussions around "taking issues" have some good information, and in my mind, some mis-information. A planner recently stated, "There is no such thing as a regulatory taking." I would respectfully disagree. Taking stems from the acquisition of private property for public benefit. There clearly needs to be a public benefit, and it needs to be demonstrated. This comes about as a taking for such facilities as roads, transit, airports, parks, schools, and public facilities. Condemnation becomes more onerous when the taking has a residual property that is later given to a private sector, as in the Monorail/ "Sinking Ship" decision by our State Supreme Court. Layered with the Kelso case, where a state is taking private property, i.e., small homes and businesses, to clear and sell to a box store or fast food restaurant, appears to be counter to Federal and State Constitutions. Condemnation taking is fairly clear in the United States Constitution and Washington State Constitution, U. S. and Supreme Court cases. A fair market price for the property taken, not only as it is now, but as it could be used in the immediate future (i.e., 5 to 6 years) shall be compensated to the property owner.
The issue becomes more difficult to decide when a "regulatory issue" may generate a form of taking that affects property values to the point they are no longer useable, or there is a significant diminishment in value. National cases recently, i.e., (1) Dolan v.City of Tiggard, Oregon, the "Nexus Issue" there must be a correlation of the impact to the taking, (2) Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Dolan (the issue of "proportional taking and value"), and the Palazzolo (Rhode Island) case (a partial reduction in use) are all guides for the Planning profession.
The interface of all these issues in taking for condemnation or through regulatory taking, are very much in the forefront of political, land use, and legal discussions at this time. Through the education process such as the Legal Seminars, we hope to bring a variety of speakers who will inform, educate, and hopefully encourage meaningful dialogue on this issue.
I look forward to working with all of you, as public and private sector professionals, and to enlightening discussions in the upcoming year.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Thorpe, AICP
President
|
| | |
|
CHAMBERS CREEK PROPERTIES UPDATE
| |
| | |
|
Chambers Creek Properties Update
by By Anne-marie Marshall-Dody
Recognized by the American Planning Association in 2004 for its vision of its Master Site Plan and quality of implementation to date the Chambers Creek Properties project is transforming over 700 acres of gravel mine from fields of Scot's broom to an urban oasis through the use of "green" development standards, restoration of native plant communities, and sustainable development practices. With the project credo "Reclaiming our Resources" as its model, every action taken supports and exemplifies a sustainable approach to reclamation and development of public lands.
The Chambers Creek Properties is unique among public lands, with 935 acres, two miles of Puget Sound shoreline and two miles of forested Chambers Creek Canyon, the Properties topography offers sweeping views of the Olympic Mountains, local islands, and Puget Sound. Redevelopment of the Properties is guided by the Chambers Creek Properties Master Site Plan and includes revenue generating uses to provide long-term operating revenues for 10 miles of paved trails, beach access, two public piers, a boat launch, play fields, a golf course, arboretum, production nursery , environmental education center and acres of open space.
Chambers Bay Aerial Overview Looking South
 |
Since the Master Site Plan's adoption in 1997, a number of redevelopment projects have been completed or are underway, including the construction of the award winning Environmental Services Building, two playfields, miles of urban trails and a championship golf course. The Environmental Services Building, completed in 2002, is the first significant project to be built and houses the administrative staff for Pierce County's wastewater, water programs and solid waste programs. In addition to office space, the facility is a community asset, providing needed space for community events, banquets and meetings. Designed by the Miller Hull Partnership the building was selected as a 2004 American Institute of Architects Top Ten Green Project.
In 2004 Pierce County hired the golf course architectural firm Robert Trent Jones II to design Chambers Bay, a 18-hole links-style championship course. The course is designed to take advantage of the unique attributes of the site and will use the reclaimed wastewater provided by the adjacent Chambers Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant for irrigation and the County's new biosolid fertilizer - SoundGro. As part of the construction project approximately 2 additional miles of pedestrian trail and 6 acres of open space will be made available to the public. Chambers Bay is on target to open May 2007.
Two large public open spaces North Meadow (six acres) and Central Meadow (22- acres) are pending final Council approval for construction beginning this fall. North Meadow is six acres in size with parking for 38 cars and a restroom facility and will connect to the Properties urban trail system. The meadow, planted with a variety of native grasses and trees, will provide panoramic views and spectacular opportunities to view sunsets over Anderson and McNeil islands.
Central Meadow is 22 acres and located in the central portion of the Properties with parking for 84 cars (with expansion room to 250 cars), a restroom facilities and connection to the Properties trail system. A 12- acre lawn is designed for passive recreation and as a staging area for small community events. Native grasses will be used extensively throughout Central Meadow in combination with hundreds of native shore pines and other trees. In the future, this meadow will be the spring board for access to the 2 miles of Puget Sound shoreline which borders the Properties.
The County is committed to regular updates of the Master Site Plan and its companion documents, the Chambers Creek Properties Standards and Guidelines, 2003 and the Joint Procedural Agreement. Regular updates keep the Master Site Plan responsive to the changing needs of the County and the interest and desires of the community.
In April 2005 the County began the update process by forming a 15 member Citizens Committee and a 62 member agency Resource Team. After a series of three day workshops held between April and May, the Citizens Committee, supported by the Resource Team, sifted through all the input received and made the following recommendation:
- Addition of:
- Two boardwalks for shoreline access on Puget Sound and Chambers Bay
- An environmental institute to promote environmental business and research
- Small scale lodging to support the golf course
- Central Meadow
- Revisions to:
- Location of native plant arboretum
- Location of Environmental Education Center
- Square footage and increased parking for some adopted uses such as restaurants and open space areas
- Deletion of :
- Former Surface Water Management Office site from the Plan
- Botanical garden
- Railroad relocation
The County Executive agreed with the Citizens Committee recommendation and forwarded the plan to the County Council for their approval. As part of the Joint Procedural Agreement, the cities of University Place, Lakewood and Pierce County must all agree on the Update before it may be implemented. The Update is in review now and is expected to complete the adoption process by the end of the year. More information regarding the Chambers Creek Properties can be found on our website www.piercecountywa.org/ccp or by contacting Anne-marie Marshall-Dody (253) 798-4140.
Gabe Snedeker, AICP
Gabe Snedeker, AICP
 |
Gabe Snedeker, AICP, has joined The Watershed Company, environmental consultants, as Senior Planner. He will lead the firm's planning team as it expands its staff and range of services at its new location in Kirkland, 750 6th Street South. Snedeker was formerly the Principal Planner with the City of Mercer Island and has more than a decade of experience as a professional planner with a wide range of skills, including, environmental analysis, GMA and SMA planning, sensitive site development, code writing and public process facilitation.
Highest and Best Use
By Robert W Thorpe, AICP
This article on Highest and Best Use is a precursor to further elaboration on this topic in our Planning/Legal Seminar Series in the Spring of 2007.
Highest and Best Use evaluation of properties, involving four steps as summarized below, is the basis for economic analysis, feasibility, appraisal, loans on properties, sales price, and permeates all parts of the broad topic entitled Real Estate Evaluation, Utilization, and Development.
The key issue in the current Washington environment relates to the public taking of private property in whole, or partial, or even in some cases, to regulatory taking. The property owner is allowed, under state law and under Supreme Court cases, to look ahead five to six years, to determine a future Highest and Best Use (H&BU), calculate that value, and determine the current valuation of the property, regardless of whether that is the current use. This test is, it must be a "Reasonable and Probable Future Use".
The H&BU approach comes into play when any government agency seeks easements for roads, utilities, a sewer plant, a Sound Transit or Monorail right of way, a SeaTac Third Runway, or other public entities seek properties for schools, utilities, etc. An appraisal and valuation needs to be done by a team that includes a licensed appraiser, usually a member of the American Institute of Appraisers, and/or a state licensed appraiser, with other team members to provide expertise in engineering, planning, architecture, etc. This is a topic that becomes a major point of discussion as the evaluation opinions are developed by the property owner and the taking agency, and often become a point of serious discussion by the various parties' attorneys.
What is Highest & Best Use? People use it all the time in meetings; realtors stand up and say, "the obvious highest and best use of this property is as follows". I would submit to you, after teaching this subject for 30 years, a cursory analysis does not create an obvious or clear highest and best use of any property. The H&BU analysis involves principles going back to old English law, and our United States Constitution and the definitions by the United States Supreme Court and in cases since the inception of our State, in the State of Washington. A very good source on this is the Sixth Edition of Appraisal. The 1974 Edition set forth on page 133 a long series of State and U. S. Supreme Court cases, and the current Appraisal of Real Estate and the MAI text for Course 520 provide definitions for all appraisers and expert witnesses. Cases throughout the United States have further defined this, bringing into play the concepts of "Nexus" in Doland v. Tigard in Oregon; "Proportionality" in Nolan/California Coastal Commission, and "Partial Taking" in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island in Connecticut. In our own state, the Monorail vs. Sinking Ship Garage has brought this issue to the forefront. The appraisal team needs to evaluate four steps set forth by the Appraisal Institute, and clarified by case law: (1) Legally permissible; (2) Physically possible; (3) Cost effective, and (4) Greatest economic return for the property.
Step 1 (legally permissible) involves reviewing all regulations, federal, state, and local, including Comprehensive Plan, zoning codes, subdivisions, environmental processes, approval, and probability of each and every one, i.e., a reasonable probability of a rezone, a conditional use permit, a subdivision, or any other entitlements/permits.
Step 2 (physically possible) is the traditional "carrying capacity" analysis - what does a piece of property, when the constraints or any environmental issue, i.e., wetlands, steep slopes, lack of utilities, or access provide for a yield of homes, commercial square footage, office square footage, etc. This is often defined by planners who practice in this area as the "Most Probable Use" of the property.
Step 3 (cost effective) involves the cost to develop the property, including both on- and off-site costs, infrastructure, mitigation fees, and any development costs associated with the project. Computer models and resources such as Means and Marshall/Swift are available to assist analysts in this area. The point here is that the land is a residual of all other elements to develop it -- soft costs, permitting, entreprenurial, finance, sales, etc. The cost to develop discounted against sales price provides you the value of the land.
Step 4 (Greatest economic return) is the critical one in all of this, but a mistake in any of the first three steps leads to compound mistakes in the fourth step. This evaluation needs to be done by a licensed appraiser, i.e., Washington State licensed or American Institute of Appraisal licensed. For a final evaluation real estate brokers, planners, engineers, etc., are not licensed in this state to give opinions in this area, and in my opinion violate state law by so doing. Individuals may give general opinions of range of value, but not a specific valuation derived from this process. (Note: A unique part of Washington State Law allows the property owner to testify as to an opinion of value, regardless of his or her education or experience.)
All of this information in the first four steps is then put into the appraisal format to determine the value using any one or all of three approaches: (1) Market: i.e. comparable sales; (2) Cost to develop; (3) Income/Capitalization.
My experience teaching two classes licensed by State in Highest and Best Use, that cover the first three steps, is that these subjects are somewhat but not well understood, even by those that practice in the condemnation area or provide opinions to elected officials about the impacts of taking issues. There have been cases in the last few years in the state, including the Seattle Convention Center condemnation, Department of Transportation vs. Lakeside, Port of Seattle vs. Pier 27, and recently, Seattle Monorail vs. "Sinking Ship Garage" and US DOT vs. Paul Bunyan Gun Club, that have modified the legal basis for evaluating Highest and Best Use.
In closing, what are the implications for planners? Under the Growth Management Act, all 13 goals are required to be balanced - no one goal trumps any other. Therefore, the challenge of our profession is to balance "on one hand", the requirements of economic growth, population, housing, and land use elements to provide for "buildable lands", with, "on the other hand", environmental and natural resource protections. Highest and best use analysis and economic feasibility is a tool that can benefit the planning profession in analyzing these important issues. The PSA Board looks forward to expanding upon this subject in the Legal Seminars in the future.
Robert W. Thorpe, AICP is a Certified Planner with Masters Degrees in Urban Planning, Urban Design, and Urban Development/Land Economics, and is a Certified Expert Witness in State and Federal Courts. He serves as President of the Puget Sound Section of the American Planning Association, Chair of the Building Industry Legal Trust Fund, and is a Board Member of Habitat for Humanity.
|
|
|
Housing Cost and GMA
By Mike Stanger
A few brief observations from a retired planner from the East Coast who occasionally drives on I-5 and I-405:
At the presentation of the Draft Regional EIS on May 23rd. Marilee Utter, of Citiventures discussed the "drive until you qualify" factor in regional development. This factor generated by the high cost of housing in compact urban areas or new suburbs causes households of moderate income to seek shelter costs and mortgages that are affordable for their income -generally in areas that are underdeveloped and distant from regional employment centers. I am familiar with this phenomenon in older urban areas where there is generally a significant amount of available housing stock in areas of reducing populations and employment. Shortages of affordable housing stock in those regions were local and not regional. I am not however, certain of the impacts of this factor on growing regions with growth management controls. My judgment instructs me that the current market and demographic conditions favoring population reconcentration, in parallel with sustained suburban development in housing, are in conflict with the fundamental policies of containing sprawl and results in an exclusionary impact on persons (the proverbial service worker, policepersons, teachers, etc.) of moderate incomes seeking housing in areas proximate to employment. Most communities traditionally seek to overcome this impact by providing zoning districts that can accommodate smaller lots and higher density development models based on the assumption that higher densities encourage lower costs. I question this assumption in close-in areas, especially in a region that has significant limitations in transportation alternatives, either private or public.
The public has historically intervened in housing markets by zoning and development regulations, utility and road placements, growth management policies, tax regulations and by direct subsidy in the area of low income housing. The public has also relied on the "market" to adjudicate the final costs to the user when the development is for households having incomes above the poverty level. Relying exclusively on business cycles to "cure" problems of housing cost and distribution is hardly satisfactory. There is also, however, history of public intervention for middle income housing, especially in the post depression and post war period and there are contemporary examples of set-asides for "middle income" housing. It might be time to look at those models if current trends continue. I don't think this region can tolerate the impacts of a "drive until you qualify" world.
|
| | |
|
SPRING '06 BROWN BAG RECAPS
| |
| | |
|
Spring '06 Brown Bag Recaps
Historic preservation as economic development (4/26/06)
A new study on the economic impact of historic preservation is being done for the Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. Deputy Historic Preservation Officer Greg Griffith presented preliminary findings. Millions are being invested, as documented through various programs, with high rewards in jobs, income, and tax revenues. Heritage tourism is a growth industry.
Charlie Sundberg explained King County's incentive programs for historic preservation, with emphasis on North Bend. There, a historic revitalization is helping bring the downtown back to life. Vacancies have lowered. Between 1999 and 2004, gross annual sales there have increased from $3.5 million to $7.8 million.
John Chaney, Executive Director of Historic Seattle, related preservation to sustainability, noting the energy conservatism of many traditional building materials. The Cadillac Hotel restoration in Pioneer Square is a recent success. In John's view, not all that is old is good, and not all that is new is bad. Nonetheless, a judicious amount historic preservation does stabilize communities, making them safe for lenders and insurers, therefore for developers.
Land use entitlements and site plan approvals (4/3/06)
Bill Stalzer of Stalzer & Associated defined "site plan approval" as a process for approving site plans and completing SEPA for commercial, multi-family, or mixed-use projects before reviewing building plans. The site plan usually depicts only horizontal layout elements, though early design review (building elevations) is sometimes included. A "site plan approval" is distinct from a "binding site plan," which is an alternative to a standard subdivision process.
Bill said developers sometimes desire site plan approvals in the case of large phased projects, especially those requiring expensive custom building plans on a difficult site. Sometimes they desire it for vesting, too, though not all such permits have been deemed to vest proposals. On the other hand, site plan approvals have sometimes posed an extra hurdle of doubtful value.
Steve Ladd gave the results of a survey of whether various jurisdictions issue some sort of "site plan approval" or "use permit."
- The following do not and are fairly happy without it: Auburn and Bothell. (In some cases a separate site plan approval is not necessary because SEPA and vesting can be resolved via another required approval such as rezone, grading, short plat, or developer agreement).
- Kent does not and would rather have it.
- The following do and are fairly happy with it: Federal Way, Gig Harbor, Lakewood, King County, and Seattle.
Bill Kreager of Mithun Architects encouraged planners to think outside the box, procedurally. He noted that site plan approvals can be either administrative or quasi-judicial. The added public review can improve a project, but NIMBYism remains a growing problem.
John Harkness of Camwest said site plan approvals are handy to provide certainty when planning staff turns over. But if based on skimpy review they can lead to problems later on when flaws are discovered, and if too thorough they are an onerous extra step. The submittal requirements are sometimes too rigorous and the processing time too long. It's hard to achieve the optimum level of review. John likes site plan approvals for large or phased projects but not for simple ones. Maybe site plan approvals should be optional, based on whether the project needs it.
Community Planning Assistance Teams (CPAT) (4/10/06)
Amy Tarce of Halcyon Planning and Urban Design said that these CPATs are pro bono efforts, mostly design-oriented. The recipients are small cities with small or no planning staffs. Sultan was chosen as the pilot project. Six planners contributed. Cle Elum will be next. Volunteers needed! WA Chapter APA President Steve Butler and Janet Rogerson of CTED explained how the program is a partnership of EWU, UW, CTED, and APA. There will probably be two CPATs per year, one east of the mountains and one west. To get a CPAT for your community contact Janet at 360-725-3047. To volunteer, send a resume to Andy Estep at office@washington-apa.org.
Placemaking on a Budget (4/17/06)
Susan Harden is co-author of Placemaking on a Budget, a new PAS report on cost-effective ways to enhance community identity through creative local people. Her book is rich with photos of wacky and whimsical objects. Be it cut-out figures of people greeting you as you drive into town, or a tattoo museum, or a bench that emulates a historic flume, they are all cheap and locally inspired. Maybe all your town really needs is a street dance! If the San Andres Fault runs through your 'burb, what the heck, make a monument that looks like a big crack opening up. Everything is a canvas! Paint murals on the walls. Carve sculptures out of dead trees. Set out artsy-fartsy garbage cans. Look for local history, individual viewpoints, details in the landscape. Involve seniors, youth, and crackpots. Have fun. Get Placemaking on a Budget through the APA Book Service.
Improving the pedestrian environment (4/24/06)
Lyle Bicknell of the City of Seattle outlined the challenges facing us as we walk in urban settings, and the need to carefully think about the needs of pedestrians. Seattle is categorizing streets by pedestrian level of service.
Catherine Casseday is a traffic engineer who also works for Seattle, at the interface of walkers and cars. Safety is crucial, but the competition between modes is high. Pedestrians have many needs, such as room to walk and gathering, lighting, and well-marked crosswalks. Often rights-of-way are too narrow for the many facilities jostling for space. Sometimes the street trees lose out, sometimes the parking goes, sometimes one lane goes. Big turning radii are good for cars but less safe for walkers.
Lucy Sloman's work with the Issaquah design review board has led to a kit that the board members use to review applications. They all get scales, markers, and a series of overly templates showing well-known lot layouts, parks, and plazas in the region. Members overlay the site in question with what has happened elsewhere for a point of reference that allows careful thought about the needs of pedestrians. She views streets as "sociable public realms" where things like block parties can happen.
Ron Lewis went through how Sound Transit is designing its light rail stations with pedestrians in mind. Intense thought has been given to everything affecting their experience, including materials, contours, and way-finding. Some pedestrian crossings are at-grade, some are grade-separated. The route from rail to bus is scrutinized, as is the route from rail to airport terminal when the SeaTac expansion is complete. The boardings are all level - no step up onto the train. Transit, vehicular, and pedestrian signals are coordinated. Crossings at wide streets have pedestrian refuges in the middle.
David Levinger of Feet First discussed how participatory design is applied to pedestrian environment and encouraged planners to use his non-profit organization as a resource.
|
| | |
|
SPRING '06 BROWN BAG SCHEDULE
| |
| | |
|
Spring 2006 Brown Bag Series Schedule
Come to the FREE session you need to do your job better!
APA-subsidized lunches, only $2!
RSVP to Steve Ladd,
ladds@ci.bonney-lake.wa.us, or (253) 447-4350.
| Topic |
Time |
Place |
Great speakers! |
Vision
2020+20
The
EIS is out. Questions remain. Will regional planning drive
local land use, even if that jurisdiction has no “center”?
How do 2040 population projections mesh with local planning? Are
the growth alternatives widely understood? What is the
relationship to the Multi-County Planning Policies? Get answers
from staffers and an elected: special guest Mike
Lonergan, Deputy Mayor of Tacoma. (Dan
Cardwell gets the Bright Idea Award for this one.)
|
Noon
to 1:15, Aug. 2
|
PSRC,
1011 Western Ave.
Suite
500
Seattle
|
Mike
Lonergan City of Tacoma
Norman Abbott, PSRC
Bill
Trimm,
City
of Mill Creek
Kimberly
Freeman, Pierce County
Karen Wolfe,
King
County
|
Wisdom
from the Mountaintop
The
WA Chapter APA Senior Action Committee (distinguished retirees)
wants to tell you how planning used to be done, and
critique how we do it now. This is a rare opportunity for
reminiscences, anecdotes, and oral history of planning in the
Puget Sound. (No promise all SAC members will attend.)
|
Noon
to 1:15, Wed., Aug. 9
|
Mercer
Island City Council Chambers, City Hall, 9611 SE 36th St.
|
Ken
Dueker,
Bob
Cornish,
Art
Grey,
Frank
McChesney,
Raj
Joshi,
Bob
Burke,
Roberta Lewandowski
|
The
Power of SEPA
Some
say newer environmental reg’s have reduced SEPA’s
relevance. Yet the permit process is still awash in checklists,
determinations, and mitigation conditions. SEPA still matters!
Learn theory and practice from a team of vast experience.
|
Noon
to 1:15, Wed., Aug. 16
|
Renton
City Hall, 1055 S. Grady,
7th
floor
|
Marvin
Vialle, retired DOE
Jack
Pace,
City
of Tukwila
Mike
Paine,
City
of Bellevue
|
The
Future of Mobile Home Parks
Most
areas have at least one MH park. They provide the only
ownership option for many low income families, but some are bad
neighbors or conflict with future land use plans. Learn
about the socio-economics of MH parks, how rising land prices will
drive closures, and how to manage closures.
|
Noon
to 1:15, Wed., Aug. 23 set
|
Renton
City Hall, 1055 S. Grady,
7th
floor
|
Michael
Luis,
The
Housing Partnership
Judith
Stoloff, FAICP, Snohomish County
|
Update
on Initiative 933 (the proposed takings law) and APA’s
response
In
November voters will decide on the Property Fairness Initiative.
By mandating compensation when regulations reduce property values,
retroactively to 1995, I-933 would gut many land use and
environmental protections. While property rights activists gather
signatures, the APA gathers its wits. APA will act, and by then we
will know how.
|
Noon
to 1:15, Wed., Aug. 30
|
Renton
City Hall, 1055 S. Grady,
7th
floor
|
Steve
Butler
WA
Chapter APA President
Joe
Tovar, FAICP, Planning Director, City of Shoreline,
|
|
