New poll data from Montana:
I-154, the property-rights measure, had the support of 51 percent of those polled, while only 24 percent were against it. 25 percent said they are undecided.
A district court invalidated the initiative because of fraudulent signature-gathering, but the state supreme court has yet to rule on the case and could overturn the lower court’s decision. In any event, valid or not, I-154 will appear on Montanan’s ballots.
And new poll data from Washington regarding I-933:
47 percent of those questioned said they would definitely or probably support the measure, while 31 percent said they opposed it or would probably vote no.
The numbers in Washington represent a weakening of support for I-933. In July, 55 percent were in favor; 23 percent were opposed.
Eric de Place
Arie,I think you’re pointing the way toward a fairer (and probably more effective) way of managing land use. At another time I may like to debate the fine points, but I basically agree with you. Now what Washington needs is some articulate spokespeople who understand the manifold dangers of 933 and similar ballot measures, but who can also speak to rural concerns. Know anyone like that? (hint, hint)Best,Eric
Arie is going in the right direction.But the reality is that if (as I suspect) I-933 loses, such very reasonable sentiments will be ignored, as they have been for 30 years.. There is NO interest among urban environmentalists for a revisiting of how to re-allocate the “burdens and costs of growth management.”
Eric de Place
David,That strikes me as more than a small overstatement. I think urban greens can understand a basic appeal to fairness—one that that’s not a wrecking ball like 933. And at the very least, they should have a pragmatic interest in revisiting the issue in order to relieve opposition to growth management and prevent 933 from recurring in the near future.Also, of course, state policy is not actually set solely by those “urban environmenalist” bogey men. I think the Farm Bureau is (gasp!) misleading us about that.
From the Olympian today. I hope this is more than just wistful thinking, perhaps there is some momentum here: “The Olympian’s editorial board is recommending a “No” vote on Initiative 933 in hopes that state leaders will come back into session in January and reach an agreement on the property rights measure. The state’s leaders compromised on medical malpractice in the 2006 session, so they can tackle property rights after voters reject I-933 this fall.”
There is NO interest among urban environmentalists for a revisiting of how to re-allocate the “burdens and costs of growth management.” Well, the urban virnmintulists allowed expanded permitted uses on ag land last session. And the “urban environmentalists” (albeit post facto) in OR learned their lesson about the issue and are writing, now, articles about this issue and how to alleviate the concern. And the “urban environmentalists” are expanding the number of proposals for conservation easements and clustering ordinances. And the “urban environmentalists” propose (and buy from) more niche markets and local food co-ops to allow rural landowners to make an income off their land. And the “urban environmentalists”…etc.–
Newsflash. From my post above: We need bipartisan leadership to step up and pledge the following:In today’s Seattle Times and PI are reporting on the Governor and ex-Governors’ bipartisan calls for a No-on-933 vote with a promise to follow up in the legistlature. It falls short of a pledge towards sharing costs and burdens equitably – or any concrete ideas for that matter, but it’s a start.