Here in Washington State we have an initiative on the ballot in the next election, I-933, which basically says that if the Government (you know, the guys that threaten you with guns and jails and fines and things) decides to restrict your use of your property that they ought to compensate you for it.

The Seattle Times is reporting that a whole bunch of ex-governors have banded together to help fight off I-933. I notice that they don’t mention Dino Rossi… Anyway, they think it will be the worst thing to happen to the state since … Here are a couple of choice quotes:

Evans said I-933 would cost taxpayers billions because, despite what supporters say, it wouldn’t allow governments to waive regulations instead of paying landowners.

No, Mr. Evans, you just don’t pass the regulation in the first place! It doesn’t cost you a dime if you’re not trampling all over their property.

Locke said cities that recently incorporated could be forced to pay landowners for city rules that are more restrictive than the county regulations they replaced.

Sounds like a good reason to pass I-933 to me! How would you like to be happily living in un-incorporated King County one day and the next find that you are now part of a city with higher property and sales taxes? And with no recourse! What are you going to do? Pick up your property and move a couple of miles east?

She added that the state Growth Management Act, the source of much of the rural frustration behind I-933, isn’t perfect but is too complex to change by voter initiative…

So if its so damn complicated how do our citizen legislators understand it? Or do they? And if they don’t then what business do they have passing laws that are ‘too complex’. Sounds to me like Queen Christine thinks she’s smarter than the average voter. And maybe she is, since she won by 126 votes (or thereabouts).