[This is part of a series.]

New items are coming in faster than I can keep pace with. But here are a few gems…

In Washington, a group of developers and affordable housing advocates released a report arguing that I-933 would severely impair efforts to supply decent affordable housing.

In a similar vein, David Horsey, at the Seattle P-I, has a clever cartoon in today’s paper.

Researchers at the University of Washington released a new study estimating the costs of I-933. The price tag for compensation, around $8 billion, is very similar to the estimate from the state’s Office of Financial Management. Advocates for I-933 claim the study was biased, but a good article in the Seattle Times questions that claim’s veracity—two of the lawyers working on the UW study are also legal advisers to the Building Industry Association of Washington, which is supporting I-933.

(Ever-astute commenter Dan has argued that the compensation price doesn’t matter because communities will waive laws, rather than pay compensation. That’s what’s happened in Oregon. It’s a fair point. But it’s also worth noting, as the UW study’s authors did, that there’s actually no authority, in I-933 or elsewhere, to waive the laws. So Washington communities would be in a bit of a legal pickle. And the high price tag does matter in at least one way: it essentially forces the legislature to overturn important laws or face financial disaster.)

Lastly, the California Farm Bureau, which is opposing Proposition 90, released a short but scorching critique of that state’s ballot measure. The reasoning applies well to the measures in other states too.