Debate on Washington State Initiative 933 - KCTS Connects Videos

llamamarch Says:

Jul 20, 2008 - Vote YES on 933 . The governemnt has stolen much of my land(acres), with only minor forms of compensation like a $100 reduction in property taxes. They say it is still mine, but I can not fence it, plant it, graze on it, so It may as well be a public land, It's surly not mine, but I paid for it, and the government took it. I WANT PAID. I am for environment protection laws, but we must all pay equally, not just the land owner, the city dwellers too must pay

willonutoob Says:

Jul 20, 2008 - I'm sure glad with all this flooding in the lowlands that 933 was not repealed. Is your land right on a river or creek or wetland? What percentage can't you develop?

LaResistance Says:

Jul 20, 2008 - 933 would have costed too much for tax payers, thats why the people voted NO on it.

llamamarch Says:

Jul 20, 2008 - Mine is on a high high bank alond a salmon creek (2500 ft frontage). The flooding and 933 have really nothing to do with each other. Environmental city dwellers have caused the gov to still my land. Maybe the gov ought to ban city dwellers from owning cars since there is public trans. How would like that?

llamamarch Says:

Jul 20, 2008 - No - peole want to protect the environment, but they don't want to pay for it. It is only the nieve that believe all the environmental laws that get passed are paid for by the citizens. FALSE - it the land owners. The gov pay nothing, just like you.

willonutoob Says:

Jul 20, 2008 - Wow. You own a huge piece of property along an important stream! If you thought when you bought that you could build something there, and then the government said no you couldn't because it will damage the stream, i can see how that would be very frustrating for you.

willonutoob Says:

Jul 20, 2008 - When i bought my land in Seattle just 10 years ago, i already knew that i would not be allowed to build up more than one additional story, or out to the sidewalk, etc... I certainly can't do anything that i want on 'my' land, just like you can't on yours, but i think the difference between our situations is that i knew this when i bought my land. Zoning laws change in Seattle, but not so often as places where the human population is rising quickly like say up in North bend.

willonutoob Says:

Jul 20, 2008 - I bet if you hold onto it the land will increase in value to what you originally paid for it quite quickly with all the population growth, and many many people would love to live along a stream. Most of the small streams in Seattle were paved over years ago.And, maybe the county would be willing to work with you on this now after the 933 publicity raised issues with the growth management act.

llamamarch Says:

Jul 20, 2008 - No, what happened was, when I bought the property the set back was 100 ft from the stream, and 2 months after I bought it an applied for a building permit, the local gov said the set back is 200 ft. The gov also killed/distroyed 1000's of native salmon on my property that were part of a natural lake on my property. They did this to help make salmon an endangered species, by increasing the count of fishery salmon.

llamamarch Says:

Jul 20, 2008 - willonutoob, - I could go on an on how our gov screws over private property owners and farmers. I have owened several parcel of land (100 ac +), and the gov makes up and fabricates violations in order to stop building the permittign process. The gov threatens property owners with imprisonment. The gov knows property owners are only small groups of often only one person, and we have no power as individuals. City dwellers rule