Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Dashed "Investment-Backed" Expectations: Will The Constitution Protect Property Owners From Excesses In Implementation Of The Growth Management Act?, Elaine Spencer
Seattle University Law Review
Section I briefly discusses the basic principles of takings law as enunciated by prior cases, as well as the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, and the Washington Supreme Court's recent decisions in Sintra, Inc. v. Seattle and Robinson v. Seattle. Although the Lucas decision has received considerable publicity, it advanced the state of the law rather little. The real guidance for future decisions arising out of the GMA will come from earlier United States Supreme Court decisions and the Washington Supreme Court's decisions in Sintra, Robinson, and Lutheran …
Practice And Procedure Before The Growth Planning Hearings Boards, Wm. H. Nielsen, M. Peter Philley, Chris Smith Towne
Practice And Procedure Before The Growth Planning Hearings Boards, Wm. H. Nielsen, M. Peter Philley, Chris Smith Towne
Seattle University Law Review
In 1990, the Washington State Legislature took the first significant step toward growth management when it enacted the Washington Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA directs cities and counties to protect natural features and to begin planning to accommodate anticipated population increases. The legislature examined the recommendation of the Growth Strategies Commission' to create an independent dispute resolution system to resolve conflicts under the GMA. The Commission recommended the use of a panel of independent arbitrators with mediation and binding arbitration. Appeals would be limited to the Washington State Court of Appeals only on constitutional and procedural issues. The legislature …
Takings Law, Lucas, And The Growth Management Act, John M. Groen, Richard M. Stephens
Takings Law, Lucas, And The Growth Management Act, John M. Groen, Richard M. Stephens
Seattle University Law Review
In light of Lucas and the recent constitutionally questionable Washington decisions, government entities charged with implementing the GMA may have a more difficult time avoiding takings liability than previously thought. Accordingly, this Article first seeks to clarify the modern takings analysis as refined by Lucas. Second, Washington takings precedent is contrasted with the federal approach and several key changes are suggested to make state law consistent with controlling federal precedent. Third, key aspects of the GMA are identified that can be expected to raise takings implications. By identifying potential trouble spots in the GMA now, hopefully some takings will …
Is The Growth Management Act Working? A Survey Of Resource Lands And Critical Areas Development Regulations, Gary Pivo
Seattle University Law Review
Section II of this Article begins with a summary of Washington's statutory requirements for both local resource land and critical area development regulations. Section II then reviews the circumstances under which those regulations have been adopted. Section III describes the methods used by the research team to collect and evaluate those regulations. Section IV examines whether Washington counties and cities have met their adoption deadlines. Section V describes the general approaches being taken for meeting those requirements. Section VI compares the regulations to one another in order to judge their consistency and relative restrictiveness throughout Washington. Section VII looks at …
Between Scylla And Charybdis: Growth Management Act Implementation That Avoids Takings And Substantive Due Process Limitations, Jeffrey M. Eustis
Between Scylla And Charybdis: Growth Management Act Implementation That Avoids Takings And Substantive Due Process Limitations, Jeffrey M. Eustis
Seattle University Law Review
This Article begins with an overview of the GMA. It then proceeds with a summary of recent case law under the Takings Clause and substantive due process doctrine. After laying this groundwork, this Article focuses on four particular areas of growth management control and explores how local legislation implementing these areas of control would be analyzed under the Takings Clause and substantive due process. These four areas of land use regulation include: critical area protections, resource land designations, development phasing requirements for concurrency and urban growth areas, and impact fees for public facilities and services. This Article then concludes with …