Dear Rob:
Pursuant to our question last night at the May Valley Alliance meeting, in our research regarding the CAO as being unconstitutional, we first reviewed the GMA requirements and found that the attorney general under RCW 36.70A.370 is supposed to do the following:
RCW 36.70A.370    Protection of private property.
(1) The state attorney general shall establish by October 1, 1991, an orderly, consistent process, including a checklist if appropriate, that better enables state agencies and local governments to evaluate proposed regulatory or administrative actions to assure that such actions do not result in an unconstitutional taking of private property. It is not the purpose of this section to expand or reduce the scope of private property protections provided in the state and federal Constitutions. The attorney general shall review and update the process at least on an annual basis to maintain consistency with changes in case law.

(2) Local governments that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 and state agencies shall utilize the process established by subsection (1) of this section to assure that proposed regulatory or administrative actions do not result in an unconstitutional taking of private property.

(3) The attorney general, in consultation with the Washington state bar association, shall develop a continuing education course to implement this section.

(4) The process used by government agencies shall be protected by attorney client privilege. Nothing in this section grants a private party the right to seek judicial relief requiring compliance with the provisions of this section.
We made a request under the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION act to the State Attorney General (AG) for what documents were prepared by the AG's office to comply with RCW 36.70A.370.   They forwarded to us the AG's "ADVISORY MEMORANDUM: Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property, December 2003". (the "Memorandum")  This document is supposed to be a guide (not a legal opinion) to assist local governments in determining whether certain governmental actions could result in an unconstitutional taking.
We have read the AG's Memorandum, cover to cover.  We then compared "it" to other state and national TAKINGS documents either as court precedences or treatises by those in the judiciary.  And although we have no intention of comparing every statement in the Memorandum against other documents, some very striking differences occur between the AG's Memorandum and these other cases and opinions.  Not to mention some substantial omissions.  One glaring omission was not mentioning anything about the "Best Available Science" doctrine as required in the Growth Management Act to establish a "clear governmental purpose".
         The first and most striking difference was what the AG construed as the rights of ownership as defined by the State and Federal Constitutions:  The Memorandum stated that 1) "The Right to Own or Possess"; 2) "The Right to Exclude Others from the Property"; and 3) "The Right to Transfer the Property to someone else".
And yet in a "Fifth Amendment" treatise by State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders (12/10/97), states that:
"Property "is defined by (Washington) state law. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1972). Our state, and most other states, define property in an extremely broad sense."
"Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right."
Ackerman v. Port of Seattle, 55 Wn.2d 400, 409, 348 P.2d 664 (1960) (quoting from Spann v. City of Dallas, 111 Tex. 350, 355, 235 S.W. 513, 19 A.L.R. 1387 (1921)).
And further, Justice Sanders states:
"While it is up to each state to define property for itself, the right to use one’s property has been universally understood to be a fundamental attribute of real property ownership. Compare Eaton v. Boston, C. and M.R.R., 51 N.H. 504, 511-512 (1872) ("the framers of the Constitution intended to protect property rights which are worth protecting; not mere empty titles . . . among those elements is, fundamentally, the right of use . . . ") and Lord Coke: "to deprive one of the use of his land is depriving him of his land. What is the land but the profits thereof?" See also John M. Groen and Richard M. Stephens, Takings Law, Lucas, and the Growth Management Act, 16 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 1259, at 1266, 1295 (Spring 1993)."
Rob, even a layman can understand that when "use" is severely restricted or taken, ownership becomes a barren right.  If property ownership is a "barren" right, then private citizens have no right to own property.  If the private citizen has no right to own property, then it follows that Government "owns" all property.  Many in government and the environmental movement actually believe this and would like to see this to be the final outcome of private property in America today, the Constitution be damned.
We rural landowners ask that you please review the AG's Memorandum of December 2003 and see about clarifying true property ownership, best available science issues and when TAKINGS occur.  Politicians, driven by very powerful environmental lobbyists, need regulations, restrictions and ordinances of their own to curb the wholesale restrictions and takings of private property by government ordinance. 
In fact Rob, if it doesn't stop pretty soon, Washington State Government at all levels, is going to have a major uprising on their hands from rural landowners, all across this state and it is my intent to foment that uprising if changes don't occur soon.  We need your help to curb government where your authority as AG will allow you to do.
Thanks again for expressing some of your knowledge and wisdom about the CAO, re-districting and other relevant matters at the May Valley Alliance last night.
Take care and good luck as Attorney General.
Ron Ewart, CEO
Fall City, WA
425 222-4742 or 1 800 682-7848