Not to say that ideology isn't a factor at all, but your map shows a very strong correlation between money spent in a county and a "no" vote on I-912. It's true that the correlation isn't perfect, as the example of Spokane country illustrates. But the take-away certainly isn't, as you assert, that there is no significant correlation at all. Any statistician looking at that map will tell you that it shows correlation between a county's political support and the money spent there that is significant and strong.

Certainly strong environmental measures aimed to manage smart growth under GMA (e.g. King County's CAO) have raised the ire of property rights advocates. And I have heard rumblings of an M37 lookalike in the making, though I was surprised to hear your prediction the farm bureau will be offering one up shortly.

It raises the question: Given M37 was dubbed unconstitutional, violating not only several parts of Oregon's state constitution, but also due process under the federal constitution, how likely is it property rights nuts can put together a viable, legal measure in this state?

We all will pay the tax as drivers in Washington state, but given how many more drivers there are in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties who have commutes that are costly, shouldn't they also get the largest projects? That seems to make a lot of sense to me.

I agree about worrying about a Measure 37-like initiative in 2006, but caution against re-fighting the last war when that strategy doesn't apply.

Given results posted at King County Records and Elections, King County rejected Initiative 912 by 66.52%. While it shows that voters in the county overwhelmed the opposition elsewhere in the state this time, the No on 912 campaign was fighting for a responsible road package that had business, labor, and enviornmental support in the legislature and had funding for two key critical projects in this county in 520 and the viaduct. When you look at other issues, especially something like Measure 37, we would not be able to have such overwhelming support. (For example, Ron Sims only won 55% of the vote, which is telling as property rights advocates have made the Critical Areas Ordinance fight personal with Sims, though it was also passed by a majority of the King County Council.)

The fight against Measure 37 needs to be statewide. Spokane, Kitsap, Stevens, Clark, Skagit, and Whatcom counties all have farmland, critical areas, and natural resource land where local supporters can mount a strong defense of strategic land use planning, growth management, and resource area protection. Would a measure 37 be defeated in all of those counties? Probably not, but it would be important to rally some support to not require an unrealistic two-thirds victory in King County.

This is not a east-west issue. Unchecked sprawl development is the enemy here. We need to be smart about having a broad coalition of farmers, environmentalists, and supportive rural folks.

M-37 was sent packing by Oregon courts. That defeat, I fear, will only help the anti-government folks to craft a version of the initiative that will be harder to throw out in court. Sort of like they got to test it in Oregon and now they can bring it up here.

full disclosure: i am not a lawyer and don't understand the nature of how and why the Oregon court threw it out.

From the PI on Tuesday:
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

Land rights on '06 ballot?

Days after election, Farm Bureau launches initiative drive for next vote

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

By JENNIFER LANGSTON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

The Washington Farm Bureau kicked off an initiative drive Monday night that would require the government to pay landowners harmed by land-use regulations, or allow them to use the property as they wish.

Just days after the fate of several major statewide initiatives was decided, groups on opposite sides of long simmering land-use tensions started gearing up for a fight that voters could settle next November.

Property rights advocates plan to file an initiative after the first of the year and begin collecting about 225,000 signatures needed to put it on next fall's ballot, officials said.

It's unfair to make landowners provide open space, wildlife habitat or other benefits to society without compensating them for their property's lost economic potential, they argue.
[...]
It's also being crafted to avoid the legal pitfalls encountered by Oregon's Measure 37, a property rights compensation package that passed with 60 percent of the state's popular vote last year.

A judge recently ruled the measure is unconstitutional, in part because it applied only to people who bought property before a zoning or environmental regulation was enacted. That decision is being appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court.

P-I reporter Jennifer Langston can be reached at 206-448-8130 or jenniferlangston@seattlepi.com.

© 1998-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer