Located directly across Puget Sound from Seattle, the City of Bainbridge Island is a residential suburb. Despite the fact that its shorelines have been fully developed for decades, the city updated its Shoreline Management Plan in 2014 to require that any “human activity” with the potential of disturbing shoreline vegetation be approved by the government and subject to numerous highly contentious conditions—including requirements that the owner execute a conservation easement of sufficient size to “enhance” and “restore” the marine shoreline. The city then declared it to be a crime punishable by jail time and hefty fines for anyone to engage in such “human activities” on their own property without prior government approval.
The city claimed the right to strip shoreline residents of their rights based on an appellate court decision holding that the Shoreline Management Act enacted by Washington’s legislature explicitly rendered property rights “secondary” to the public’s interest in the environment. That decision is wrong. The Constitution cannot be thrown away, whether by an act of legislation or a court decision, because it is the fundamental law of the land.
Concerned that this new law would deprive all shoreline residents of their property and privacy rights, a group of Bainbridge Island residents formed Preserve Responsible Shoreline Management (PRSM) to fight the bold incursion into assault on individual rights. Pacific Legal Foundation represented PRSM at no cost in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Bainbridge Island SMP. The lawsuit argued that Bainbridge Island’s demand that residents give the public a conservation easement on their land in order to secure a permit approval is not supported by the scientific record and takes more than is necessary to mitigate any negative impacts caused by development.
What’s At Stake?
- Shoreline permit conditions violate the unconstitutional conditions doctrine if they automatically and uniformly demand the dedication of a conservation easement and are imposed without site-specific considerations.
- The provisions of Washington’s Shoreline Management Act represent a compromise between the interests of government, environmentalists, industry groups, and property owners. Judicial elevation of environmental interests above all others destroys the careful balance intended by the legislature.
