To: NARLO Members, Rural landowners, Government Types, Interested Parties and the News Media

From: Ron Ewart, President, National Association of Rural Landowners

FOR: All recipients, but especially those in Washin= gton State

Two years ago, when Rob McKenna, previous King County Council Member, won election to the Washington State Attorney General's (AG) office, many of us were elated that finally one of = our own was in a position of power and might render some decisions that wo= uld be favorable to rural landowners. Part of the AG's duties was to prov= ide an Advisory Memorandum on government takings of private property, as required by the State's Growth Management Act (GMA). Although the AG's office is supposed to publish an Advisory Memorandum (AM) every year, pursuant to Washington State RCW 36.70A.3.70= (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=3D3= 6.70A.370), the last AM was published in December of 2003, 3 years ago.

Just before Mr. McKenna took off= ice, we provided him with a 5-page testimony on TAKINGS that we gave to the King County Council just prior to the passage of the County's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). In that testimony we took issue with the 2003 AM, in that it excluded the RIGHT OF USE as one of the fundamental right= s of property ownership. In our testimony we provided some case law on the fundamental right of property ownership that we researched from a treatise = by State Supreme Court justice, Richard B. Sanders. We provided that testimony to Mr. McKenna a few days before he took office and he promised t= hat one of the first priorities of the AG's office was to publish a revised AM. Finally, two years later, we have one.

We just read the revised AM (see attached PDF file , revised Advisory Memorandum, Part III, Warning Signals, Paragraph 3, page 17) and found once again that the RIGHT OF USE was excluded from the four (4) attributes of property ownership. We were quite disappointed and sent a letter to AG McKenna to that effect. Our letter to the AG is attached as a WORD document.

The revised AM, although well written and a far cry from the AM of 2003, lacks real teeth to keep st= ate and local governments from passing ordinances and regulations that violate takings protections under the federal and state constitutions. The AM essentially put the question of TAKI= NGS into the courts and we all know how the courts rule. Courts don't side with the constitutions any more, they side with their interpretation of the intent of the legislature. In other words, they legislate from the be= nch.

All questions of constitutionali= ty are decided by lower and higher courts. Since the era of FD= R's New Deal (mid 1930's= ), the courts have sided with Big Government, to the detri= ment of individual rights. Property rights is just one individual right th= at has been decimated by unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions and we don't see= any course corrections any time soon. Our hopes that the AG's revis= ed Advisory Memorandum might slow down or stop the onslaught of draconian environmental regulations by local governments, = were dashed.

We concluded our letter to the AG with the following paragraph:<= /o:p>

"Every day rural landowners are besieged by environmental protection law, in violation of the equal protection clause. King County's CAO was grossly negligent in addressing only one (1) of 13 goals of this state's GMA. The County'= s CAO was not only a TAKING in the compensatory sense,= it was also a TAKING in the substantive due process sense. Unfortunately, the courts, to whic= h your Memorandum alludes to resolve such issues, aides and abets legislatures that pass all of these draconian environmental laws. In short Mr. McKenna, constitution= al protections of government abuses and takings of private property are dead, = just as protections against eminent domain for other than public purposes is also dead. Perhaps the REPUBLIC is= dead as well!"

NOTE: In defense = of the AG, we should mention here that the he has taken on some issues th= at are favorable to individual rights, most notably the Washington Education Association's (WEA) State Supreme court ruling that the rights of individual union members were subordinate to= the rights of the WEA. That case is now pending before the U. S. Supreme Court, thanks to AG McKenna and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. A favorable decision for "individual rights" app= ears likely.

Ron Ewart, President

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL LANDOWNERS

P. O. Box 1= 031, Issaquah, WA 98027=

425 222-4742 or 1 800 682-7848

(Fax No. 425 222-4743)

Website: www.narlo.org

"THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL LANDOWNERS"=

The National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) is a non-profit corporation, duly licensed in the State of Washington. It was formed in response to draconian land use ordinances that were passed by King County in Washington State (Seattle) in the late Fall of 2= 004, after vociferous opposition from rural landowners. NARLO's mission is= to begin the long process of restoring, preserving and protecting Constitution= al property rights and returning this country to a Constitutional Republic.&nb= sp; Government has done a great job of dividing us up into little battle groups where we are essentially impotent at a national level. We will change= all that with the noisy voices and the vast wealth tied up in the land of the American rural landowner. The land is our power, if we will just use = that power, before we lose it. We welcome donations and volunteers who bel= ieve as we do, that government abuses against rural landowners have gone on for = far too long and a day of reckoning is at hand. To learn more, visit our website at www.narlo.org.

President Roosevelt, in his 1933 inaugural address said, “…. The o= nly thing we have to fear is fear itself”. I maintain that the only thing we = have to fear is unbridled government. The only way unbridled government = can exist is if WE THE PEOPLE allow it. Unfortunately, we have

_popupControl();