UPDATE - Supreme Court sides with landowners on Mason Co. tax
Brad Shannon | The Olympian
• Published February 16, 2012
Modified February 17, 2012
Brad Shannon The Olympian
In a unanimous decision, the Washington state Supreme Court today found four Mason County property owners were improperly taxed $5 per parcel by a local conservation district and are entitled to refunds. The ruling reversed a Court of Appeals decision but upheld an earlier Superior Court ruling that had sided with the property owners against the Mason County and the Mason Conservation District.
At issue was the levying of a fee in a conservation district on non-forest lands. Property owners James R. Cary, Mary Alice Cary, John E. Diehl and William D. Fox Sr. brought the claim, acting as their own lawyers.
Gerry Alexander, the retired former justice, served as a judge pro tem and wrote the majority opinion. Ironically, the Bellevue-based lawyer who submitted an amicus brief on behalf of an advocacy group was Richard Stephens, a partner in a law firm with Alexander’s 2006 Supreme Court election challenger, John Groen.
The full decision is here.
The Freedom Foundation, a libertarian Olympia think tank that has fought land-use decisions in Thurston County, called the ruling a victory and quoted its lawyer, Stephens, in this statement:
“This unanimous decision represents a significant victory for property owners against creative government financing schemes that fail to comply with statutory requirements,” Richard Stephens said. “Fortunately, the Freedom Foundation provided briefing and argument that encouraged the Court to reach the favorable ruling in this case.”
UPDATE to original 1:12 p.m. post: The State Conservation Commission put out a statement – linked here – on today’s ruling.
Ron Schulz, director of policy and intergovernmental relations for the commission, also noted that “the court didn’t act on the $5 per parcel but instead said the assessment must include a per acre amount greater than the $0.00 set by the county. Because they did not set a per parcel amount, the Mason ordinance is statutorily invalid.”
UPDATE 2: Corrects the reference who Stephens' client was and notes that the four property owners represented themselves.
