King County Executive Ron Sims plans to challenge last week's Court of Appeals ruling, which overturned a key provision of the county's oppressive Critical Areas Ordinance, before the Supreme Court. What a non-surprise. 

Mr. Sims, a Democrat who is quick to exercise the strong arm of government whenever and wherever possible, refuses to cede a fundamental right back to the people, as ordered by the appellate court. He choses not to accept this ruling instead of amending the ordinance accordingly.

"If this ruling stands, it will have far-reaching and negative impacts on local governments' ability to regulate land use to protect people, their property and their quality of life," Mr. Sims claims. Translation: the ruling infringes on government's control of private property, and the socialists who run King County must do what they can to retain this usurption of power.

The appellate court tossed out a requirement that private property owners in rural areas keep native vegetation on 50 to 65 percent of their land - i.e., leave it undeveloped - even though the land belonged to them, not the county or state, and they had to pay property taxes on it.

Proposed by Executive Sims, now well into his second term, this law, which trampled down private property rights, was adopted on a party line vote in 2004 with collectivist Democrat members of the county council on the prevailing side.

Beyond his continuing assault on the rights of the people, Mr. Sims' appeal to the Supreme Court makes his priorities crystal clear. He cares first about personal power, not public safety. The million dollars this legal maneuver is expected to cost would, after all, go a long way toward keeping on patrol sheriff's deputies who are targeted for layoffs because King County faces a $70 million budget deficit.

Meanwhile, the four Republicans on the nine-member county council have seized the initiative by introducing legislation to repeal this ill-conceived provision of the ordinance. As Councilman Reagan Dunn observed, it was "rammed down the throats of rural landowners in a very close vote, and it did not involve a very effective public process."

The majority party's lack of logic, to say nothing about their lack of understanding of constitutional principles, was expresed during debate on the Critical Areas Ordinance by Councilwoman Julia Patterson, D-SeaTac, who this year chairs the council. In a statement that displayed colossal ignorance about property rights, Ms. Patterson said city dwellers already had accepted jails, airports, sex-offender housing, traffic and pollution. Now, she added, restrictions on private development simply would require rural residents to do their part to prevent urban sprawl.

Then-Councilman and current Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna strongly disagreed, accurately calling the package "the most draconian land-use regulations in the state, if not the country."

Sonya Jones noted in a recent Red County posting that the Court of Appeals ruling holds "a ray of hope for those who would like to repeal [it]." And she sounded a call to action, inviting readers to work for repeal of the law.

Count me in. As Ms. Jones observed, King County property owners won big in the Court of Appeals. But in too blue King County, the fight is far from over.

Ralph Nichols writes on public policy and legal issues from the Seattle area. He can be reached at ranichols2@yahoo.com.