Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. December 1996 Page 5 <br /> <br /> county legislatures had to adopt county-wide planning policies. Each county <br /> legislature had to meet and collaborate with representatives of each city within <br /> the county to come up with a policy. The policy would be the framework on <br /> which county and city comprehensive plans would be based. <br /> Snohomish County was one of the counties that had to adopt a county-wide <br /> planning policy. When the Act got passed, the county already had an informal <br /> planning group called Snohomish County Tomorrow. The group included elected <br /> officials from the county and its cities and towns. <br /> After the Act went into effect, Snohomish County Tomorrow put together <br /> the required county-wide planning policy. The County Council then adopted <br /> the policy as a county ordinance. <br /> Someone tried to challenge the ordinance through a referendum vote, but <br /> the state Supreme Court held that the ordinance wasn't subject to referendum. It <br /> explained the ordinance "did not establish, dissolve, or modify any legal rights <br /> ... [but] merely establish[ed] very general goals governing such issues as devel- <br /> opment of urban and rural areas, housing and transportation." <br /> Postema, who lived in a rural part of the county, sued the county and the <br /> municipalities. He claimed the Act's planning-policy requirement was uncon- <br /> stitutional. He said the Act created a regional governmental body that violated <br /> the equal protection principle of one person, one vote. City residents could <br /> vote for the county and city representatives that met to create the planning <br /> policy, while rural residents like Postema could vote for county representatives <br /> only. Therefore, claimed Postema, he was underrepresented. <br /> The county and the municipalities asked the court to dismiss Postema's <br />case. The court granted their request. The court found that Postema had no <br />right to sue because the Act created only a framework on which the county and <br />its municipalities could base their comprehensive plans. No municipality had <br />yet adopted any comprehensive plan that affected anyone's legal rights. <br /> Postema appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> The lower court properly dismissed Postema's case. <br /> Because no entity exercised any governmental powers, Postema's voting <br />rights were not violated. The group of county and municipal officials that had <br />to meet to set planning policy had no governmental powers. It could not im- <br />pose taxes, enact laws, or perform other functions normally attributed to gov- <br />ernments. All it could do was collaborate to set development goals. The goals <br />it set were not binding on any cities. The County Council had to adopt an <br />ordinance to enact any of the recommendations and the municipalities were to <br />enact their own comprehensive plans. <br /> The Act didn't change the municipalities' powers. It just made them work <br />with the county before they adopted their comprehensive plans. Nor did the <br />Act change the county's power. All the statute required was collaboration, and <br />as the state Supreme Court found, it did not "establish, dissolve, or modify any <br />legal rights." :~ <br /> <br /> <br />