Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - Page updated at 11:03 A.M.

County approves three of land-use regulations

By Keith Ervin
Seattle Times staff reporter


The Metropolitan King County Council last night passed three proposed ordinances that will significantly limit what rural landowners can do with their property, in an effort to better protect streams, wetlands and wildlife.
Early this morning council members passed the clearing-and-grading ordinance — the most controversial part of the package. The ordinance will allow rural landowners to clear only 35 to 50 percent of their land, depending on the parcel size.

The council also passed the critical-areas ordinance and the surface-water ordinance. The critical-areas ordinance establishes wider no-development buffers along streams and some wetlands; the surface water ordinance tightens regulations on how much water can run off newly developed sites. All three ordinances passed by a 7-6 vote along party lines.

The wetland buffers County Executive Ron Sims proposed last spring were revised to allow low-density rural homes to be built closer to wetlands and require wider buffers in high-density urban development.

Environmentalists supported the package, while rural landowners mounted months of protests and blasted it as "a massive land grab" that violates their property rights.

Yesterday's action came six days after the Pierce County Council became the first in the state to adopt a tough clearing rule that requires rural residential landowners to keep 65 percent of their land in native vegetation.

Sims' original proposal contained that restriction, but the council's growth-management committee last month reduced the native-vegetation requirement to 50 percent on properties of 5 acres or less.

If adopted, the modified ordinance would allow owners of more than 5 acres to set aside 2½ acres or 65 percent of the land, whichever is less.

The clearing restriction is intended to protect streams and species such as threatened chinook salmon by preserving forests throughout watersheds. Advocates cited scientific research that suggests deforestation significantly alters the runoff of rainwater, damaging streams.

Members of the Republican minority on the County Council blasted the package as unfairly putting the burden of environmental protection on rural residents, while city dwellers and suburbanites shoulder little of the burden.

"I feel very much like the rural part of the county has been disenfranchised over and over again," said Councilwoman Kathy Lambert, R-Woodinville.


Democrats said urban residents have shouldered their share of the burden of growth management.

Julia Patterson of SeaTac said city dwellers have accepted jails, airports, sex-offender housing, traffic and pollution, largely in order to prevent sprawling development across the countryside.

Dow Constantine, the Seattle Democrat who chairs the growth-management committee and shaped much of the package, said it represents "a very good package of regulations that responds to our legal and our moral obligations."

Despite amendments, the package keeps most of the major features Sims proposed in March.

At a news conference held by Republicans council members before yesterday's hours-long meeting, Rob McKenna, R-Bellevue, called the package "the most draconian land-use regulations in the state, if not the country."

"This is a momentous occasion — not necessarily a positive momentous occasion," said David Irons, R-Sammamish. He predicted that landowners will file numerous lawsuits against the new ordinances.

Republicans also argued that the county's analysis of "the best available science" didn't show the need for stricter regulation. Robert Crittenden, a fisheries biologist, said at the news conference that the author of a key paper in the county analysis "did not show his methods, so there's no way to ascertain whether it is valid or not."

Sims said a body of peer-reviewed research confirms the need for restrictions on land-clearing and storm-water runoff caused by homes and driveways. He called Republican attacks on the science report "an argument the Earth is flat. ... The Earth is no longer flat."

Sims rejected Republican arguments that existing regulations could protect the environment.

Sims yesterday proposed an ordinance that would allow property-tax breaks for owners who obtain "rural stewardship plans," approved by the King Conservation District, that protect streams, wetlands and wildlife more than regulations require.
=================================

Here's a link to the 2004 King County Council members if you'ld care to see how they voted.

http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/members/members.htm

no way aunty...poor people first!!

It will drive the value of my land through the roof. CAO is the right thing to do for the environment but it is a land grab on the govt's part.

This is the latest in Ron Simms' misguided "vision" for the future. Huge dense population centers with thousands of housing units close to town and as in the Martin Luther King neighborhood, close to the illfated light rail line. The county is going against much of the constitution in terms of "taking" of land without due compensation and the lawsuits have already started. Once again King County invites lawsuits and will no doubt settle for mega millions of the taxpayers money...Big deal to Simms though since he will just propose more taxes....

Rory, King, Grandpa,

What should the County do in your opinion. I'm not trying to be a Sims supporter, but he was right when he responded to a critic that existing regulations will protect the environment. Existing regulations are part of what has contributed to the existing degradation.

It seems to me that the social choices are either draconian conservation measures or what I call "write offs" where segments of the environment are essentially written off and no attempt is made to maintain natural environmental attributes, and society gives a free pass to such areas for unlimited housing developments and strip malls, as that's what society seems to value most. People are generally better at giving lip service to environmental protection than actual action to protect it.

And Rory, why should it matter if Sims fishes?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

First off, since my parents are property owners, I will concur with all the local signs around Enumclaw ("NO CAO!").

Second, I agree that Ron Simms has contributed to many new policies in King County. Some of these policies are the very reasons why it took my parents more than TWO YEARS to get permits to build their horse arena a few years back. TWO YEARS just to get the rights to build. Add that to the THOUSANDS of dollars to get those permits.... It's insane.

You guys want good country rights? Vote for a good country boy. It seems the people who are mostly trying to support CAO and other such land grabs are city folk who have nothing to lose by it.

Curtis

seems like i read some where that this was in response to a state mandate to protect wet lands and streams. each county has to pass something to make the state happy. they wanted farmers to fence off something like 100 feet on each side of a stream and wet land. if i rememberer right.

Well folks, we can't have it both ways. King County still has fish and wildlife resources worth saving. We all want to exercise our "right" to fish and hunt for those resources.

The King County Council has made the tough choice. They have voted to "protect and preserve" the fish and wildlife habitat that remains in the county.

On the one hand this is viewed as a "take" of private land by the County government.

On the other hand this kind of action may just protect enough salmon habitat to produce sufficient quantities of naturally produced coho (for example) to allow our valued fisheries to continue (oversimplification but you get the idea).

I think King County has demonstrated, with this vote, the type of action that is required within the "habitat" part of the "three H's" (habitat, harvest and hatcheries). Dramatic change is underway in both the harvest and hatchery "H's" but we see too little in the habitat "H."

King County has become accustomed to being a progressive County. Leadership among the counties is needed. Whether this survives the legal challenges or not, one must applaud the effort to lead Washington counties in the interest of protecting what fish and wildlife habitat remains.

Lets face it folks, if people (& companies?) were going to voluntarliy protect the fish and wildlife habitat that exists on their property we would not have the problems we do now and the King County council would not have been motivated to take the action they did.

Salmo,

Streamside buffers are critical and they need to be protected and increased. Unfortunately, the urban areas trashed theirs long ago and now they would like to move the cost of their mistakes to the rural landowners. I think it is perfectly OK to require strong protections along waterways and to ensure surface water is kept clean, but a blanket 65% taking on all rural land regardless of location is simply arbitrary. There are going to be many properties where minimal protections are necessary, and others where 65% may not be enough, but the ordinance doesn't seem to address that obvious difference. I just wish there was flexibility in the new law and if the County does see the need to "quaranteen" a significant part of someones property to protect the County's natural resource base, they should pay for it. Of course if I had the answers, I'd be running things instead of spouting off here.

DL is right. This affects all rural landowners & prospective buyers. I could understand if wrote the legislation to target low lying wetlands or property that borders streams. I agree that sometimes measures or changes need to be made but this was a drastic step. Land owners that live up in the hills that have minimal impact are included. Not sure if thats right.

This is nothing short of steeling and it WILL be over turned.

This is just another example of liberal Seattle democrats trying to please special interest groups.

There is NO SCIENCE involved in this move.

There is NO MANDATE by ANY govt agency to take these measures.

By all means protect the fish - but this is not the way to do it.

AM had it right in that we need to clean up the poisons leaking in from the big cities first. Hold cities and companies accountable. Ensure sound laws are in place and enforced regarding buffer zones, drainage, and wet lands. Focus on habit improvement and give local companies incentives to work with them and fine those who are in violation.

Blanket 'band aid' laws make NO SENSE. Most of the property involved has little or no effect on streams and rivers anyway. Why not just focus on those properties that do???

Get involved:

http://www.proprights.org/

Did You Know?


T*he proposed Critical Areas Ordinance will allow DDES to extort 65% of your property in exchange for permission to use the other 35%.
T*he new rules apply to new construction, additions, remodels, and proposed changes in land use.
*The new buffers can be as large as 3,700 feet. That is 986 acres for one spotted owl nest.
*A one-acre bog or fen will consume an additional 11.5 acres of perfectly good land for its buffer.
*You can clean agricultural drainage without a clearing and grading permit as long as it has been approved as part of your farm plan. Mitigation will be required.
*Adaptive management is much touted but it only works one way. If King County changes its mind down the road, the landowner will be responsible for making the newly mandated changes to the plan. King County is under no obligation to correct regulations that result in unintended and detrimental consequences to property owners or to the environment. It’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance deja-vu!
*Only maintenance, repair and limited replacement of structures is allowed in the new buffers. If your home is located in one of the many new buffers and burns or is destroyed by earthquake, it is unlikely that you will be permitted to rebuild.
*The ordinances give broad legislative powers to DDES and DNRP via administrative rules in violation of Washington State laws such as RCW.36.70.550-670.
*The bureaucrats contend that the affordable housing provisions of the GMA don’t apply to rural areas. The new ordinance provides for a reduction of buffer sizes in urban areas if 50% of the houses built are valued at $252,000 (affordable?) or less.
*Big developers can choose to pay a fee in lieu of mitigation. The fees are to be paid into a fund that can be used for enforcement. Bribes used to be illegal, didn’t they?
*Best available science does not differentiate between urban and rural areas. The decision to treat the two areas differently was made by the seven members of the Critical Areas Ordinance Policy Group. [see “Democracy in Action” page 3]
*Rural Stewardship Plans are touted as a way that landowners can reduce the size of the huge buffers called for in the ordinance. But ... in order to get a buffer reduction you must give up use of 85% of your property. [see Harry Reinert quote, “Possible restrictions outrage landowners”, Seattle Times, April 15, 2004, p. B6]
*The bulk of the new regulations apply only to the 15% of the land area of King County that is in between the urban areas (25%) and the forest production area (60%). If they confiscated all the land in unincorporated King County and turned it back into forest, the percentage of forest cover in King County would raise from 60% to 75%. The urban 25% will be just as devoid of fish and wildlife habitat as it is now.
*A blue heron rookery gets a 48-acre buffer.
*A red-tailed hawk gets 7.6 acres if she lives in the rural area but nothing if she should decide to nest inside the urban growth

Why do you think I dont live in King Co. Its bad enough I have to work in it!!!!!!!!!

Sims is an idiot!!!!! Just think of what he could have done to the state!!!!!

Ken Schram Commentary:

Can You Say, 'Hypocrites?'

October 26, 2004

By Ken Schram


SEATTLE - So now they're stewards of the land.

The King County Council has had what can only be described as an "environmental epiphany."

Under the guise of protecting wetlands, streams and wildlife, the council has passed ordinances that severely restrict what rural property owners can do with their land.

Want to cut some trees down?

You're screwed.

Clear those bushes?

Nope.

Build a small horse barn?

Don't think so.

With these new ordinances, up to 65% of rurally zoned property can't be touched.

Ever.

You may own it, but the county controls it.

That'd be the same county that, in the past, has allowed massive apartment complexes to spring up like weeds.

The same county that's shoehorned in condo units and housing developments.

Can you say "hypocrites?"

Landowners should expect some restrictions on property development, but this is too sweeping; too arbitrary.

It's one thing to take care with the environment, quite another to basically steal someone's property.

Maybe that's what we should expect from big city politicians who only see a salmon when it's packed in ice at the market.

Or maybe we should expect them to respect property rights, along with the environment.

Salmo G.

BTW CAO has been cooking for 15 years. It was the reason Ken Bering and Port Blakeley started the whole Cedar County movement back in the 80's.

The CAO actions are the right thing to do IMHO . It would be great if it where an individual choice. On the other hand should Govt. tell us what we can or cannot do with private property? It is clear however that the majority of people will not make that choice.
Example: I have a neighbor that claims to be an environmentalist. He is a geologist and a consultant so he understands the net effect of his decisions. Yet the cleared most of his 5 acres and fenced it for horses. They sit on a 15% or greater slope that butts a stream feeding into the Snoqualmie river. The fenced areas hold grass in the spring and summer but are all mud in the winter. Having heavy hooved animals on such land is wrong for the horses and really wrong for the streams. CAO would have required them to buffer 200 feet on the stream side effectively stopping them from having horses on their land. But should the government tell private land owners what they can and cannot do? The density and devlopment proposals in CAO are right on IMHO. It suggests populations densities equal to those found on Capitol hill in certain areas in East King county. It will create some wealthy land owners and will cost others a lot of money. We have a choice to make. Ruin it all for ever or do something to preserve what we all calim to be the very reason we live here. The CAO sword will cut both ways.

Once again TK and I are in agreement. The CAO was very heavily reviewed, discussed and argued over. Bottom line is we all want more fish, but no one wants to make any sacrafices.

Yes. I live in rural King County and yes this will effect me. If not us who? If not now when?

Who cares if Simms is an idiot, or if he fishes. It was voted on by the entire King County council. That, like it or not, is how democracxy works.

Is it legal? I don't know but I'm sure the courts will tell us.

"Bottom line is we all want more fish, but no one wants to make any sacrafices. "

More fish is good. But at what cost? What's next? These liberal wackos will be after the sportsman next. Gotta leave those poor creatures alone!!

TK - CAO goes too far. Your buddy and his horses are part of the problem, and should be addressed. But that specific situation isn't the norm. Most land owners impacted by this won't have rivers\streams on or near their property.

This is not about good science, good environmental protection - it is about some liberal city slickers who want us all to move into tiny appartments, ride on their expensive mass transit systems, and use their govt programs...

Ahhhh, the old 'american dream' is alive and well! LOL

All I can say is...well just read below.

BD

PP<

"CAO goes too far. Your buddy and his horses are part of the problem, and should be addressed. But that specific situation isn't the norm. Most land owners impacted by this won't have rivers\streams on or near their property. "

If you understand the sheet flow nature of our soils in WW and the topography almost every piece of land has some net effect on rivers and streams. Biofiltration issues and runoff have major impacts on lakes, streams ponds etc. Drill a well 100 feet deep and measure the fecal coliform, houshold chemicals etc. for miles downstream of major developments.

"almost every piece of land has some net effect "

Big deal - so does every time I pi$$ in the woods. What about all the cars on the roads? Are they going to outlaw cars in King County?

"Some net effect"??? What doesn't have some net effect??

What I'd like to see is some actual study going it to descisions like this:

What are the major concerns?
What areas are impacted the most?
Who is most responsible?
What are the alternatives for addressing the issues?
How do you measure the specific problem before and after to make sure you are acheiving your goals?
....
....

Again, this blanket approach is a bogus band aid made only to promote some extreme liberal enviro agenda.

At a minimum, the peole impacted by this should receive some kind of compensation - such as not having to pay 65% of their property taxes.... Like that is going to happen...

PP,

"Such as not having to pay 65% of their property taxes.... " or more!

I agree.

Remember I agree with the intent of CAO not nessecarily the implementation.

Well, at this point we have to deal with the intent as well as the implementation. So unless they pull back and try something a little smarter - you are either for it or against it.

Or are you voting for the CAO, before you vote against it
:p

I do not think it will stand up in the courts.

Salmo and Dave....I am totally for protecting our streams and runoff etc to protect the environment but why a blanket taking of 65% of all the rural King County lands...Are all of those acres endangering the environment? I doubt it. Have you ever been to the Snoqualmie Ridge development off of I-90? Thousands of acres of pristine timber land turned into thousands of small lots and homes 5 ft apart...I was there when the project started as I was involved in some of the commercial projects. When I first drove in off of Hiway 18 where it intersects I-90 it was a temporary dirt road leading to the soon to be clearcut mega acreage. As far as the eye could see were huge fir trees...A deer jumped out in front of my vehicle. Later on as the development took shape there were very few trees left. As far as the same eyes could see nothing but clearcut land. Now that was something planned by King County that allowed a big company (Quadrant / Weyerhauser) to do what they would not let the average property owner do.

I say the properties should be examined for the effects to the environment. Not perceived or expected problems but real ones. Set development back from streams etc....but taking all the land under the guise of protecting the environment is baloney and is against the constitution of the state.

I have talked about balance before and in this case a balance is fair. Saying you need to stop all use of land by humans to save the environment is just asking for push back when it comes to logical plans.

We are still talking about private property aren't we. The extreme environmental folks who pushed for this blanket plan feel that the land belongs to all of us...only the individual has to pay for it and then cede it to everyone else....That doesn't wash in my book.

I'm trying to look at the bright side. The vote was clearly down party lines and pissed off many democrats as well. Granted, none of the council members are up for election right now but this clearly shows where the democrats stand. Maybe this will help Rossi and Nethercut get elected.

GP: Now you are talking about something I know a bit about. I was on the citizens growth committee that "approved" the huge Quadrant developments on Novelty Hill. A group of 20 residential property owners worked long and hard to develop a plan that was fair and balanced. After many months of work we came up with five possible growth scenarios. To our surprise a sixth proposal popped up at the last moment. That was the Quadrant proposal. Our group voted 19 to 1 against the Quadrant proposal. We then had a citizen’s vote on which plan the people liked best. The Quadrant proposal came in dead last. Guess what happened. The county council completely disregarded our plan ands went with Quadrant. Did someone get paid? You be the judge. All I know is that was my last day on the committee. And we all lost. There was no BALANCE then.

Where I live in rural king County many of my neighbors move in and begin clearing land for their *&*&*^%%^ horses. The "Horse Acre" lots are NOT big enough for a horses, so the land turns to mud which then flows into our nearby creek. Is the CAO the best we could do? I doubt it. Do we need something? Damn right!

How many here fish the Snoqualmie? I do a lot.

How many of you have noticed the huge covert dumping into what WAS one of the rivers largest King Salmon spawning holes? Who do you think signed off on the permit to put this drainage in? Who had no idea who signed off when confronted with this? How did King County loose the application for permit when we asked for a copy?

This covert pumps major crap into the river like paint cement and other building products. Do you think this covert will be moved? HELL NO. We (our Lawyer) were laughed at by the County when we contacted them and said this has to change. (this is the condensed outcome of our 2 year battle)

To take control of peoples land is Major BULL when they Permit and help pay for drainage running right into the flippin river.

I agree there needs to be a buffer along all rivers, but this is insane when The County is the one of the largest offenders.

Dave.....you must be able to see that picture in your mind's eye of Snoqualmie Ridge before the clearcutting began. Now I know we need plans for growth but that big? What you describe only illustrates that he who has the gold makes the rules. Quadrant has enough money itself but also had a financial partner out of Germany (Roche) who silently helped raised millions for many deveopments like the huge ones along the ship canal in Fremont...

Ask yourself a question. Could I build a home right next to the ship canal? No....Now we have over reaction plans mandated by the pinheads in KingCounty that create an adverse reaction big time....I say if something is planned that will harm the environment and the harm can clearly be shown with science then regulations should step in to prevent the damage. What is not OK is saying you want to preserve most of rural King County and at the same time allow things like Snoqualmie Ridge.

"The "Horse Acre" lots are NOT big enough for a horse"

Most 5 acre lots are not big enough.

GP: We are not so far apart on this. I agree that he who has the gold makes the rules. Salmon have no gold and until recently not many strong advocates. Those with the Gold have clear-cut, paved, damed, polluted and netted our salmon to, or near, extinction in many areas.

The CAO might not have been contemplated if we didn't have so many runs that are endangered. There was no BALANCE for the past 120 years. Now many with good intentions are trying to rebalance scales that are very badly out of balance. The CAO is not likely, in my opinion to pass court challenges, but its existence is merely proof that we have done an awful job our managing our salmon and continue to do so whenever the pot of gold is big enough.

Welcome to *my* world folks. I deal with the compliance of municipal regulation in the development of land 9-hours a day, year in year out. Here's my take. The measures are largely just political posturing on behalf of the those in charge. The stormwater regulations pertaining to allowable post-development run-off rates (even in rural areas) that were already in place in King County ensure those rates are equal to or less than the pre-developed rates, meaning detention and metering of stormwater must be done when land is developed. It's been that way since the Dept. of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin became the mother document for municipal regulation years ago. Treatment of post-development run-off prior to discharge has also been required.

The endangered salmon that migrate through the Puget Sound and spawn in local rivers don't know how many houses there are or what the percent impervious is on the land. If they want to protect salmon, they need to go where there are piles of dead salmon. They need to get the nets out. Until the *real* issue is addressed, they could prohibit any future development and salmon runs will still contine to decline. However, since they are unwilling to tackle that political "hot potato," they will keep putting band-aids on broken legs until salmon are extinct.

How do I cope? One sip at a time. It's only through a crippling addiction to alcohol that I am able to get up and go to work every day.

Sol: Sounds like you know what you are talking about when it comes to regulations. Do you mind telling us what you do that keeps this stuff on your radar nine hours a day?

I agree with your sentiments, but do think that one problem we have always faced is focus on one problem as reason for not tackling another. Sure nets are an awful thing, that would disappear tomorrow if I were in charge, but even if they are gone the salmon still need a healthy environment in every part of their life cycle or they will go extinct nets or no nets.

I once talked to a man who had logged his property right down to the river bank, who told me "fish don't need no environment" It's the damn nets that are the problem.

In an enlightened society we would have our scientists tell us what is the number one problem and then we would tackle it. But we would also be looking at all the other issue and tackling them as rapidly as we could.

I see little sign we are doing that. Instead we seem to be spending millions on feel good projects like totally revamping a seasonal; stream that flows into the Sammamish Slough, right next to a huge sod farm that is sucking the slough nearly dry every summer.

I'm a civil engineer that designs the sub-divisons, Home Depots and other developments you see devour our land every day. Thats right folks, I'm a whore to the process. I learned long ago that development was going to happen reguardless of what I did for a living, so instead of living in relative squalor I became an engineer.

Originally posted by Dave Vedder:
You hit the nail on the head, Dave. Also, I do agree that we tend to fixate on the nets as the only problem, but I think thats because it is the largest component of the problem and nothing is being done about it. Of course we need to maintain habitat. I support stream buffers and restricted logging in river coridors. The measures that triggered this thread go far beyond that, however.

It is disheartening for me to comply with the increase in regulation here in the Puget Sound along streams that are already nearly devoid of anadromous fish, only to go out on the penninsula on the weekend and see a new swath of trees cut down right up to the river. We do live in an enlightened society, but politics and special interests seem to get in the way of what our best available science tells us. I do not see this changing in the forseeable future either.

"...but its existence is merely proof that we have done an awful job our managing our salmon..."


Did you REALLY need the CAO to see that??


The only thing the CAO 'proves' is that the extreme liberal democrats on the KCC will trample the rights of property owners just to appease their special intrest enviro group friends.

This is a really good thread.

Grandpa,

Where is balance? I thought a balanced approach was a good idea, but then learned that balance has subjective, rather than objective dimensions. I personally don't care for a "one size fits all" land use regulation, but then how do you deal with the injustice of prescribing a 25' buffer on citizen A's property and then a 150' buffer on citizen B's? Those kinds of differences are a real possibility with landscapes I'm familiar with for stream habitat protection.

What I'd like to see in a thread like this is where the price of criticism is that those criticizing the KCC's decision offer a constructive alternative. Given that the County has access to many experts in environmental fields, it would be interesting to read the alternative suggestions by the PP BB experts.

In the spirit of fair play, here's my suggestion. I think the universal, broad based regulations should be pretty stiff. Then a landowner has the option of following those, or presenting an alternative development plan for approval. The performance standard is that the County officials have to issue a determination that the alternative plan equals the general regulations in terms of environmental protection and impact.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

So many broad brush approaches to "protecting the environment" are smoke and mirrors. I have seen many construction projects that were forced to add "habitat" as if there were salmon spawning where no water flows. One such example is near the Alderwood Mall shopping center...behind Best Buy there are stumps and logs that were placed in a mock river bed as a requirement . Absolutely no fish were there in the first place and won't appear when it rains.

At the other end of the parking lot sits Barnes and Noble...beneath that parking lot is a monstrous water runoff collecttion vault which controls the surface water in the lot and also serves as a filter for the silt....good for the water that finds itself in the closest local creek. About a mile to the South in Brier there are some small housing developments going in. The "developers" are required to install huge collection vaults on the same scale as the one in the Barnes and Noble lot. Why? Certainly the amount of potential runoff is many times greater at the mall with its huge asphalt lot as opposed to the housing development with 4 homes and grass and trees.

Now the questions is, what scientific findings were used to determine these measures? Should we subscribe to the theory that big blanket takings of land are ok because they certainly will prevent any problems. Should the same measures required of a shopping mall be applied to a single home owner? Reminds me of the theories that spawn huge marine sanctuaries to protect one small portion of the area or one or two species within the area but by eliminating all uses they penalize many who have nothing to do with what they are trying to protect. Excluding all use just in case.

So the balance is to protect when science supports measures needed to protect and leave the land alone when no specific protection is warranted. And if the people want to condemn or take land for the perceived common good they need to step up and pay for it. To do anything less is dangerous to our democracy.