With the election approaching, there is an issue that needs some consideration before voters elect the next county council members. There is no doubt that I have a vested interest in the discussion since I am one of the candidates; but I think the details of this case warrant a look prior to the election with the understanding that a trial is scheduled for early next year to determine the final damages paid in the case. The merit of the case has already been established in the first phase of the trial, Snohomish County violated a “contract” and is now subject to paying damages.
I started writing this blog a year and a half ago when the city of Snohomish embarked on the public process to investigate the issues relative to Urban Growth Boundary expansion into the area north of US Highway 2 along State Highway 9. To my knowledge there was no public declaration that Snohomish intended to “annex the area” under the cover of darkness without that public discussion. It was an exercise to gather information.
From the date of the announcement, the City of Lake Stevens opposed the process. Even though Lake Stevens has one of the largest Urban Growth Areas in the county, they maintain that they need all the area north of US2 to provide for expansion of their city and provide commercially developable land to mitigate the unusually large number of residential lots created under the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan for Lake Stevens. There is no argument that Snohomish County undermined Lake Stevens’ Comp Plan when they failed to reserve land for commercial development.
Providing land for commercial development is critical to a city, but finding appropriate locations for it is also a planning challenge because you have to look out so far into the future and anticipate where and when you will need it. The key is to adopt a plan and reserve the land so it’s there when development catches up. That is why they call it “comprehensive” planning. Snohomish County demonstrated this past week that when they were motivated to preserve mobile home parks they found a way to rezone the land so conversion to other uses was virtually impossible. Preserving land for Commercial uses in Lake Stevens’ UGA just wasn’t a priority.
Snohomish was entering into that process of looking out into the future without a specific plan in mind, but with ideas driven by property owners. One of those property owners with a sizable chunk of land suitable for commercial development would be a plum for whichever city ultimately prevailed.
That significant property owner approached the two cities and Snohomish County to inquire about how they could move the planning process along. UGA expansion requires that a city demonstrate that they have met or exceeded threshold requirements in the Growth Management Act. The proof would be provided by mapping and gathering data about existing conditions then comparing them to capacity. For example; a city has added population, consumed buildable land or taken previously buildable land out of consideration because of critical area designation so it doesn’t have enough resources to meet future population numbers, it might be allowed to expand.
That process of gathering data and meeting other regulatory requirements is pursued in parallel by both the private sector property owners and the public agencies with the expectation that at the end the county would decide whether the UGA expansion would be allowed. It is a lengthy and expensive process designed to show whether a city meets criteria or not.
And that is where things get interesting.
The significant property owner was promised that if he shared in the cost of gathering and analyzing the data and performing other tasks he would receive an opportunity to make his case. He would get his day in court! Based upon that contract, he hired consultants to do the work required by Snohomish County. He spent almost a million dollars jumping over hurdles set up by the county based upon that promise.
Snohomish County uses a docketing process to manage changes to the County Comp Plan. Each year applications come in from both public and private entities that are then analyzed to determine how well the pertinent requirements have been met. The significant property owner was originally booked on the Docket 12 calendar to be heard in 2008. Being on the Docket 12 calendar meant there was substance to the application.
Since this project was reasonably complex, the county decided they weren’t adequately prepared to take up the application in 2008 and they pulled it from the Docket 12 calendar. The property owner would have to wait another year to learn his fate. The project was moved to Docket 13 to be heard in 2009. It wasn’t the outcome he had hoped for, but the stakes were high and a thorough analysis was necessary to make sure the proper decision was made. He would get his “due process” in 2009.
Then, later in 2008 without a hearing or anything, the county council instructed PDS to pull the project off the Docket 13 calendar and announced the project was dead and would not be proceeding to public hearing, period. They announced that the County Council had somehow already decided that the project failed to meet the standard for expansion without reviewing all the data.
The significant property owner had invested nearly a million dollars based upon the promise of “due process” as outlined in the code and now his process had been terminated capriciously by the county council.
The significant property owner sued Snohomish County in King County Superior Court. The trial took place in early 2009. After hearing all the evidence the judge ruled in favor of the property owner. In her ruling she supported every one of the claims enumerated in the plaintiff’s complaint. She also suggested that based upon the evidence there might have been “Tortious Interference” by the county that would entitle the plaintiff to more than just reimbursement for his expenses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
If the plaintiff could prove in the “damages” part of the trial that the county council members conspired to deprive the significant property owner of his business opportunity, he would also be entitled to loss of future income derived from the project along with his out of pocket investment. That could be huge!
During the first phase of the trial, the attorney representing Snohomish County offered no rebuttal to the plaintiff’s evidence. It was so clear that Snohomish County was in the wrong that he offered NO defense. What does that tell you?
The significant property owner asked the county for his nearly one million dollars and the county countered with an offer of $40,000.
The Damages Phase of the trial is scheduled for early in 2010. The significant property owner is currently taking depositions from elected officials in both cities and the county along with private citizens who might have been involved in conversations that might prove“intent” to deprive the significant property owner of his opportunity.
Since the merit of this case was already decided in favor of the significant property owner the court will now decide how much the significant property owner is entitled to in damages. If he can prove “Tortious Interference” the award could be anywhere from $5 million to $85 million.
There is currently an ongoing dialog between the significant property owner and the county regarding possible settlements. I am not privy to any of those discussions so I cannot speak to their substance, only to the fact that they are taking place.
Since the council took this action in violation of their own prescribed process, “damages” are not covered by insurance. Any damages that are awarded in this case will be paid to the significant property owner from the General Fund already crippled by the recession.
All this grief because Dave Somers’ power play pushed the county council to violate their own rules and deprived a vested applicant from due process and his day in court. The question to be asked in that regard is “Why would they take such a risky action unless there was more involved than just a Snohomish attempt to expand their UGA?” What else was in play that was not a part of the public discussion?
By letting the process continue to completion none of this would be happening. If the result of the exercise produced evidence that Snohomish did need to expand their Urban Growth Area, what was wrong with that finding? Unless a deal had already been made with Lake Stevens for that land, there was no harm.
So the issue for Snohomish County Voters in this election comes down to deciding whether Dave Somers and his Democratic Party majority colleagues demonstrated the kind of judgment we want and need in elected officials today. I think not!
This is just another in a string of issues that demonstrate the poor judgment of Dave Somers. The Council’s disregard for the law and the rights of private property owners is stunning! When all the evidence is presented, it will be shown that property owners have been significantly damaged because The County abused its power.
Can we really afford to pay millions of dollars for negligence, arrogance and ego?
So, who do you want representing you on the Snohomish County Council?
I am running for County Council because I respect the law and the citizens of Snohomish County. I leave it to the voters to decide about Dave Somers fitness to serve.
Ballots are going out today for the General Election of 2009 where voters will decide who is to lead us during the next couple years.
Vote For STEVE DANA!
No Loss for Words 
Roanoke Conference
by Steve DanaI spent the weekend of January 29-31 at the Ocean Shores Convention Center attending the first annual Roanoke Conference; A gathering of Republicans. For a first time event, I was favorable impressed with every aspect of the proceedings.
There is no doubt that Republicans are motivated following the surprising success of candidates in New Jersey, Virginia and most notably in the Massachusetts Senatorial election with the victory of Scott Brown. Whether the enthusiasm is attributed to dissatisfaction of voters from the entrenched Democratic non-leadership or the quality of the Republican candidates is yet to be determined. The important thing is that local Republicans now have something to be excited about. The Roanoke Conference is a good tool to bring together valuable election campaign resources with enthusiastic candidates and supporters with the common purpose of winning elections in the fall.
The Roanoke Conference is modeled after the Dorchester Conference held in Oregon for the past eight or nine years. We have to give those Oregonians credit for continuously holding their gatherings during some pretty dark years for Republicans in that state.
Widening the expanse of the party tent to include people of many persuasions that do have differences but similar core principles is critical to the party establishing credibility with Conservatives and moderates to elect capable candidates that can govern well if given the opportunity.
Dino Rossi’s presence made the event credible. Former Senator Slade Gorton was frosting on the cake. Having both of them in attendance put a shine on a great event.
I came home from this conference excited about the prospects for Republicans. Not just because of the move away from the Democrats, but because the attendees agreed that when the Republicans had their chance they blew it. The attendees seemed determined to elect candidates with a different agenda this time around.
I remember when Republicans took over the Congress following the ’94 elections, I speculated then about whether our long years in the minority had taught us how to be better leaders. Sadly, it became clear early on that “pay back” was a high priority for many Republicans rather than leading with humility. If we are lucky enough to have another chance, I hope we can do better than we did then.
I was also encouraged by the Tea Party activists. Even though they were critical of leadership on both sides of the aisle, they formed up with Republicans because we share core values. It is unfortunate that it took such devastation to our country to arouse the sleeping giant, but now that it is, we need to harness the enthusiasm for a positive outcome.
When I ran for Snohomish County Council in 2009, my campaign focused on creating private sector jobs, supporting small businesses, protecting property rights, limiting the growth of government, balancing the interests of the people with the environment and responsibly managing tax dollars. Even though I lost that election by a slim margin, I correctly identified what the issues in the election should have been. I suspect that if that election were to take place in 2010, the outcome might be different.
The mood of the country was changing in the last half of 2009. If I were to challenge Hans Dunshee in the House of Representatives campaigning on the same issues, could I compete favorably?
As our country struggles to get through this recession, everyone agrees that without jobs there is no recovery. The Democrats cling to the idea that government jobs are the same as private sector jobs. We all know that couldn’t be further from the truth. Public jobs may be cushy, but they don’t produce a value. Private sector businesses that manufacture a product create the family wage jobs that are the backbone of our economy. Incentives for those jobs are key!
What is holding back the creation of private sector jobs? A lack of credit! If the President really wants to get the economy moving again, he just needs to make credit available to businesses again. Not off the wall risky credit, but business lines of credit that will allow existing businesses to get back to work.
A tax credit for a job created doesn’t compare to jobs created from a line of credit.
Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary, Washington | Leave a Comment »