Opinion ID: 1308063
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: the majority decision nullifies due process rights of surrounding property owners

Text: In applying the exhaustion doctrine, the majority has misread both the applicable county ordinances and RCW 58.17.180, which grants review rights to aggrieved property owners. The unfortunate result of this decision is to deny property owners judicial review of governmental action which substantially affects their property interests. This deprives the Association members of property rights without due process in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. In Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80-81, 32 L.Ed.2d 556, 92 S.Ct. 1983 (1972), the Supreme Court stated: The constitutional right to be heard is a basic aspect of the duty of government to follow a fair process of decisionmaking when it acts to deprive a person of his possessions. The purpose of this requirement is not only to ensure abstract fair play to the individual. Its purpose, more particularly, is to protect his use and possession of property from arbitrary encroachment  to minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations of property, a danger that is especially great when the State seizes goods simply upon the application of and for the benefit of a private party. So viewed, the prohibition against the deprivation of property without due process of law reflects the high value, embedded in our constitutional and political history, that we place on a person's right to enjoy what is his, free of governmental interference. We have consistently recognized that persons residing within an area encompassed in a zoning action have a sufficient protected interest to challenge the action. Byers v. Board of Clallam Cy. Comm'rs, 84 Wn.2d 796, 529 P.2d 823 (1974); Anderson v. Island Cy., 81 Wn.2d 312, 501 P.2d 594 (1972). The record in this case contains affidavits from 21 neighboring property owners who comprise the Association, specifically setting forth the detrimental effects on their property interests which will result from this proposed subdivision. [4] The majority's decision to deny these property owners judicial review of the Council action effectively allows the arbitrary encroachment on property interests which due process is designed to prevent.