No Man's Property is Safe

If Mark Twain is obsolete, then this must be Washington. In the 19th century, the silver haired sage observed that, “No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session." Well, for once, every Washingtonian’s property is unsafe now that the legislature has gone out of session without reaffirming that private property will be protected under state law.
A stiffer state law is now required since the United States Supreme Court decreed that local governments may seize the property of a poor man and give it to a rich man, if the rich man can present a plan for increasing tax revenues. Alarm bells rang nationwide and other, similar abuses were revealed. Suddenly, after more than two centuries, the long taken for granted assumption that a man’s home is his castle no longer obtains. Cops may need a search warrant to enter your property, but under the newly enhanced powers of eminent domain, Donald Trump can take it if he convinces the city fathers that he can fatten their coffers faster than you can.
Shortly after the Supreme Court weakened property rights, an article appeared in the King County Journal assuring us that Washington’s constitution affords more private property protection than the United States Constitution. But that was like waving a red flag in a bull’s face and the Washington State Supreme Court took up the challenge and went the US Court one better. When a Tacoma couple challenged Sound Transit’s authority to take their land to make room for a rail station, the Washington State Supremes ruled that courts are not even required for government entities to seize private property, nor are the courts to be considered appropriate routes of appeal. Further, the court ruled that the governmental entity seizing your property need not directly inform you that your land is at risk so that you can appeal. An internet posting is adequate. You always scan government websites to see someone’s planning to take your land, don’t you?
If this sounds a bit like the opening chapter of the book, “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” it should. But isn’t it telling that in just over a quarter century, what author Douglas Adams considered a humorous absurdity is now considered good government.
And so, it came as only a mild surprise when I read the newspaper headline, “Democrats shut down efforts to affirm state's constitution.” I say mild, because Democrats will always struggle with private property protections. After all, there will always have to loopholes.
Just look at governor Christine Gregoire’s proposal to protect private property. According to the Seattle PI, she proposed a state law that would “affirm court cases and the constitution.” I assume that includes the court case above.
Democrats would have difficulty protecting private property because their allegiance to the principle is conditional. Democrats consider it good law that, if an endangered species of beetle happens to wander onto your property and lay eggs in your backyard, for all intents and purposes ownership of your land is transferred to the bug. Palouse farmers have got to be quaking with the news that a giant white earthworm, long thought to be extinct, was turned up in a spade of dirt a few weeks ago. It’s not entirely unreasonable for farmers to fear that they will find their livelihoods threatened as their farms are declared critical habitat.
Something very similar happened when a Tipton’s kangaroo rat was found to have perished under farmer Taung Ming-Lin’s disc in California about six years ago. Federal government wildlife and law enforcement agents descended upon his private property looking for remains of one of the rats after Lin had worked his field. Upon finding a deceased representative of the species, the government alleged that the desperado, “did knowingly take and aid and abet the taking of an endangered species of wildlife, to wit, Tipton kangaroo rats.” They seized his tractor and disc, and threatened him with a $300,000 fine.
Clearly, if the government can take your land and sell it for a profit to another, or if a government entity may seize your land without any right to appeal, then your property is not secure. And for the legislature to adjourn without restoring protections stripped away by the courts is irresponsible.
Meanwhile, I’m looking for a pesticide that will keep my land safe from earthworm invasions.