The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Initiative 933 attempts to put a creative twist on the state constitution to undercut a decade of land-use laws. That done, it would then hold a financial gun to the head of state and local elected officials as they write new laws to manage growth, protect the environment and preserve agricultural lands….Vote no.

The Seattle Times
Initiative 933 is an expensive hoax on property owners and taxpayers who would live next to and pay for the turmoil created in the name of safeguarding private-property rights…Vote No on I-933, a very bad bargain for Washington state property owners and taxpayers.

Tacoma News Tribune
This initiative may look “fair” to the select property owners it would enrich, but its unprecedented, radical, extra-constitutional notion of property rights would be catastrophic for the state as a whole. I-933 must be rejected.

The Olympian
Under I-933, government officials would have two choices: Let development occur or pay the landowner for loss of property value. It’s an awful choice, estimated in two separate studies to cost Washington taxpayers $8 billion…Initiative 933 goes too far and is too costly. Vote “No” on I-933 and send the property rights issue back to the Legislature where it belongs.

The Oregonian
It’s not worth it. Oregon’s property-rights law hasn’t led to a sweeping improvement in the fairness of the land-use system. Instead, it’s picked new winners and losers, led to substantial legal and bureaucratic expenses, bitter fights among neighboring property owners and a confusing, chaotic system that can no longer ensure careful growth management. I-933 would bring all this to Washington state. We don’t recommend it.

Skagit Valley Herald
Look closely at who is behind I-933 and what their real motives are. Then decide if this is really the way we should be making planning decisions that ultimately affect all of us forever.

Yakima Herald-Republic
About the most positive thing we can say about Initiative 933 is that it is a good example of why it’s bad public policy to write complex state laws by initiative — absent the give-and-take of debate and compromise in the legislative arena. We strongly urge voters to fill the “no” box on their ballots on this proposal; it is a nightmare waiting to happen.

The Stranger
The cost of all this new government bureaucracy and compensation is staggering: $7.5 billion to $8.5 billion. This initiative goes too far and costs too much. Vote no.

Longview Daily News
Initiative 933 is a radical proposition with many harmful and far-reaching implications for the state and its future. Voters should reject this ill-conceived initiative.

The Wenatchee World
If I-933 is an effort to strike back at government for overstepping its bounds, it is the bluntest of blunt instruments. It is a bludgeon when a scalpel is needed. If passed it will surely do far more harm than good — fair for some, unfair for many. Vote no on I-933.

The Aberdeen Daily World
The kicker is the sticker. The taxpayers would end up footing the bill. The Washington State Office of Financial Management estimates the cost to the public at $7 billion to $9 billion. A similar measure approved by Oregon voters has already cut deeply into government services and spurred almost $4 billion in claims against taxpayers.

Walla Walla Union Bulletin
Initiative 933 should be rejected by state’s voters: Waiving land-use and zoning requirements, particularly a decade after the fact, is a train wreck waiting to happen.

Vancouver Columbian
Non-experts (in land use) who oppose Initiative 933 include a vast array of environmental, tribal, educational, religious and civic groups, even labor and builders’ groups that understand the danger of trashing land-use regulations or extorting huge, unavailable tax dollars to pay for claims. Protect your environment, your quality of life and your wallet. Vote “No” on Initiative 933.

The Everett Herald
What if the courts do allow rules to be waived? You’ll likely see irresponsible development, sprawl that isn’t supported by proper infrastructure, and environmental damage. Voters should reject I-933 as an exercise in overkill.

Spokane Spokesman-Review
No doubt states, particularly Washington, have imposed regulatory mandates that have been unfair to farmers and others. But the proper way to address that overreach is through legislatures, where all interests can come to the table in a deliberative process.

Kitsap Sun
Initiative 933, the so-called “property fairness” measure, threatens to overturn a decade’s worth of environmental protections and orderly land-use planning. Alternatively, it could force local governments — meaning taxpayers — to essentially pay protection money to maintain the environmental and esthetic integrity of their neighborhoods and countrysides.

Pacific Northwest Inlander
I-933 and Prop. Two are the worst kinds of abuse of the initiative system. All the efforts of local people to determine a common way of life, via planning and legislation, would be blown up by out-of-state money and disingenuous, manipulative ad campaigns.

Tri-City Herald
The inequities farmers and ranchers face may not be readily apparent to the rest of the population. But if I-933 passes, the problems it would create for the state will be abundantly clear to all. The Herald recommends voters reject Initiative 933.

Bainbridge Island Review
Washingtonians should choose a wiser path than our neighbors to the south and vote “No” on I-933, a pro-development, anti-growth-management measure cloaked in the guise of fairness.

The Bellingham Herald
No one should support Initiative 933 — not even the many citizens in our county and state who are frustrated by government regulation. We urge everyone to vote no.

Anacortes American
It would cost us billions (just ask Oregon) and likely roll back environmental protections that contribute to our quality of life while opening the door to development and gutting the Growth Management Act. Add our voice to the chorus urging a “no” vote on this ill-conceived measure.

Lynden Tribune
Although all of us may be skeptical of government rule-making, I-933 would be a sweeping set-aside of laws that presumably had some merit in being enacted in the first place. Vote NO on Initiative 933.

The Centralia Chronicle
We strongly recommend passage of this measure, primarily sponsored by the Washington Farm Bureau, which represents commercial farmers statewide.

The King County Journal
Opponents of the initiative cry about the potential cost to compensate aggrieved property owners should I-933 pass. Proponents support I-933 because it’s the fair thing to do. Count us among them, and vote “yes” on I-933.

I-933 enjoys little support among newspaper editorial boards because it is a disastrous, dangerous right wing initiative. Vote NO.