This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Point Wells: James Madison speaks for Richmond Beach

The state Supreme Court has ruled on Point Wells, but where is Richmond Beach's justice?  Where is the City of Shoreline?

Who is John Galt?

In the State Supreme Court case, Town of Woodway and Save Richmond Beach, Inc. v. Snohomish County and BSRE Point Wells, LP, the court sided with BSRE, Snohomish County, and--waiting at the negotiation table--the City of Shoreline in upholding the Appeals Court ruling that BSRE's 3000+ condominium permit application was vested. But its decision was not unanimous. The vote was 6-3. Justice Charles W. Johnson wrote the dissenting opinion, which begins on page 18 of the pdf document. 

Find out what's happening in Shoreline-Lake Forest Parkwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The thoughtful City of Shoreline provided a link on the Point Wells project webpage to the Supreme Court decision pdf, but guess what--the link does not work . Sound familiar? Oh sure, the link in the article about the decision on the City's news page works, because unlike the one on the Point Wells page, it points to a genuine location for the document. Broken links and other obstacles  to a conscientious public seeking to stay informed in matters of local government are standard operating procedure at City Hall.

Back to the story.

Find out what's happening in Shoreline-Lake Forest Parkwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

In Federalist No. 44, James Madison (writing under the pseudonym Publius) argues for the constitutional protection of individual property rights, sparing individuals  from the caprices of profit-seeking state and local governments:

"Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation...The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link in a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society."

There is something very good and very clear about the common sense expressed by Mr. Madison. We all feel it, even those among us intent on gaming the system.

The passage above has often been cited in defense of the vested rights doctrine, the subject of this Supreme Court case. Justice Johnson in his dissent states that the doctrine is meant to protect the land owner/developer from the municipality. Sounds reasonable enough. But as he points out, there is no law in question, which the developer seeks protection from. The very ordinances that were struck down in an earlier court decision, were ones passed by Snohomish County to help the developer, not hinder it.  Justice Johnson argues in effect that the vested rights doctrine cannot properly be construed to help developers to circumvent fairness--in this case, by partnering with Snohomish County to craft an illegal law, to the financial benefit of both parties, and then using the narrow window of bureaucratic opportunity to skate in with their permit application before the courts slam the window shut, which they did. For whatever reason, the majority concluded otherwise.

But it was not the developer who needed protection from the government in this case. We needed that protection. We,  the weary, more-industrious and less-informed part of the communities of Shoreline and Woodway.

That's right. The future President Madison's eloquent passage speaks with equal force to the current pains and penalties ironically endured by the people of Richmond Beach and other neighborhoods as a result of Snohomish County's distortion of its round hole planning policies to accommodate this square peg development proposal. BSRE could not have made the proposal work  under the Snohomish County code that existed when they entered the scene. Our community was reasonable to bank on the stability of the neighborhood we invested in. Who knew, that in 2006 (8 years ago, not 3), a billionaire would approach Snohomish County with an outlandish proposal, and lobby successfully for a site-specific change to enable their eccentric urban center oxymoron. Justice Johnson points out the absurdity, and he is quite right.

If only the City of Shoreline had taken up the fight on our behalf.  We clicked, but their link was broken.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?

More from Shoreline-Lake Forest Park