Edmonds tree replacement requirements violate property rights, Washington court rules

Edmonds, Washington; December 12, 2024: Nathan Rimmer, an Edmonds property owner, is celebrating after a Washington court ruled the City violated his constitutional property rights by refusing to issue a building permit for a new home unless he agreed to plant two trees and maintain them forever on his own property. The court held the City may not condition its issuance of a permit on Rimmer agreeing to plant unwanted trees on his land. 

“We are delighted that after years of waiting, Nathan is able to build a home on his property without surrendering his rights,” said Brian Hodges, a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents Rimmer. “The City of Edmonds’ demand was unconstitutional and served no purpose other than to increase its authority over private land use while trampling on property rights. Unconstitutional permit conditions like this drive up the cost for property owners to create badly needed housing, exacerbating the housing shortage.” 

Mr. Rimmer purchased the vacant lot in 2022, but after applying for a building permit, he was blocked by the City of Edmonds unless he replaced an ornamental tree located where his new home would be built with two additional “replacement trees.” Before the City would issue a building permit, it demanded that he dedicate a conservation area on his property for the replacement trees’ perpetual protection and include it on the property title.  

The court relied on precedent from previous PLF victories Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, when in 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down government demands for land in exchange for a permit as an “out-and-out plan of extortion” and Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, where the Court confirmed that government demands must be sufficiently proportional to the actual impacts of the proposed use.  

The case is Rimmer v. City of Edmonds, WA.