+menu-


  • Category Archives Public Trust Doctrine 2011? and 2014?
  • WA State Public Trust Doctrine 11/10/11

    WA State Public trust Doctrine 11/10/2011

    WAC’S ON SMP BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE?

    Not where I’ve been living for the last 70 years

    Indeed,  substantive laws in the United States of American are not created in an SMP Update.

     

    WAC’S ON SMP BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE?

    I woke up THAT morning and remembered researching the “The little Word Due “

    —————————————————————————-

     I submitted this as my comment    On the SMP Update

    WA State Public Trust Doctrine 11/10/2011

    This is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (PAGE 88 )
    “Finally
    , SMP’S, unlike other comprehensive plans,

    are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program.

    As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines

     BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE.

    in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.”

    (the complete document “WAS”  available on line)

    ———————————————————————————–

     The Supreme Court has in recent decades added increasingly

    stringent due process restraints on Congress and the states, pursuant to its mistakes in Hurtado. With regard to procedural law, the Court has developed a test for determining what process is “due” by balancing three factors:

    (1) the nature and weight of the private interest affected, [page 31]

    (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of this interest using existing procedures compared with alternative or additional procedures, and

    (3) the government’s concern with both the interest involved and the procedures used to regulate it.

     Unfortunately, the rationale of a majority (or supermajority) of the people’s representatives is not even a factor here, much less a determinative factor of what procedure is “due.” Likewise for substantive law,

    the general position of the Court is now that when a fundamental interest is at stake involving life, liberty, or property, then the state must have a “compelling” objective, and its statute must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective.

    In cases involving non-fundamental interests, the state must have a “legitimate” objective, and a statute must be rationally related to achieving that objective. The Court thus determines what powers of state government are legitimate or compelling, regardless of the enumeration of powers in a state’s constitution. The Court also determines what rights are fundamental, notwithstanding rights that may be enumerated in a state’s constitution. In this way, the Court now decides what laws are due or undue, and what the law of the land should be.

     I am  searching for TRUTH with regard to the legality and taking of Constitutional  and private property rights.

     I submit this as my constitutional right to Freedom of speech.

    ·          I submit this as my comment 11/10/11

    ·         On the SMP Update

    ·         Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    ·         George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    ·         Member SMP Advisory Committee

     

    ————————————————————————————————————

    As a Public SMP Comment  it created a situation for Ecology (DOE).

    ———————————————————————————-

    Additional email comment

    It is my understand  of the due process of law and the hidden process that the DOE is using to  on page 88 of the DOE Public Trust doctrine to create WA State law, that we have been denied due process.

      If there was an opening paragraph on the WAC SMP advising us that anything we put into our SMP Update would BECOME WA State law perhaps it would be considered some form of a process.

     There is no mention or disclosure in any SMP Update or WAC SMP Guideline material regarding the process that  DOE (in its appointed capacity) is using to creating enforceable WA State law.

    —————————————————————————————–

    So what happened next?

    The WA State Public Trust Doctrine online went missing.

    So, I submitted another SMP public Comment

    ———————————————————————————————

    WA State DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site is no longer accessible on line?

    PUBLIC ACCESS to the Doe WA State Public Trust Doctrine IS BEING DENIED to “We the People” ON LINE.

    After I submitted an SMP comment on 11/10/11 on the Due Process of Law.

    DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages) has gone missing and

    IT HAD BEEN REPLACED WITH THE FOLLOWING

    Local governments should consider public trust doctrine concepts when developing comprehensive plans, development regulations and shoreline master programs. There are few “bright lines,” however, as the Public Trust Doctrine is common law, not statutory law. The extent of its applicability can only be determined by state court decisions. The document below is a good introduction to the case law in Washington State.

    ——————————————————————-

    Go on line for WA State DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site for complete information.

    I submit this as my comment

    On the SMP Update

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

    ————————————————————————

    Question everything

    Anyone can make a difference.

    Ecology (the DOE) might even want a private meeting with you.

    ————————————————————-

    NOW WE HAVE THIS.

    2014  The Public Trust Doctrine

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/laws_rules/public_trust.html

    The Public Trust Doctrine is a legal principle derived from English Common Law. The essence of the doctrine is that the waters of the state are a public resource owned by and available to all citizens equally for the purposes of navigation, conducting commerce, fishing, recreation and similar uses and that this trust is not invalidated by private ownership of the underlying land. The doctrine limits public and private use of tidelands and other shorelands to protect the public’s right to use the waters of the state.  (Visit the MSRC Web Site and search for the State Supreme Court case Caminiti v. Boyle, 107 Wn. 2d 662, 732 P.2d 989)

    The Public Trust Doctrine does not allow the public to trespass over privately owned uplands to access the tidelands. It does, however, protect public use of navigable water bodies below the ordinary high water mark.

    Protection of the trust is a duty of the State, and the Shoreline Management Act is one of the primary means by which that duty is carried out. The doctrine requires a careful evaluation of the public interest served by any action proposed. This requirement is fulfilled in major part by the planning and permitting requirements of the Shoreline Management Act. (Court case MSRC website and search for Portage Bay v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 92 Wn.2d 1, 593 P.2d 151)

    Local governments should consider public trust doctrine concepts when developing comprehensive plans, development regulations and shoreline master programs. There are few “bright lines,” however, as the Public Trust Doctrine is common law, not statutory law. The extent of its applicability can only be determined by state court decisions. The document below is a good introduction to the case law in Washington State.