HB 2294 Another Leap for the Socialist Nanny State

By Cindy Alia 1/14/26

HB 2294 Prohibiting negative use restrictions on real property that have the effect of limiting consumer access to food and medicine.  Is another leap for the Socialist Nanny State to make sure Private Property Owners behave exactly as the bil sponsors imagine they should for the benefit of those living nearby that property for the purpose of maintaining or increasing food and medicine access.  

The bill directly interferes with property rights through eliminating negative use restrictions for a property agreement.  Here is an overview of concerns with this prohibitive bill:

I. Introduction: Overview of Concerns with the Proposed Bill

The Washington state bill voids private negative use restrictions on real property for grocery stores and pharmacies, prioritizing public access over contractual freedoms.

This raises fundamental issues about property rights and governance, including the erosion of the "right to exclude" and a shift toward state-mandated compliance that favors socialistic elements over capitalistic principles.

II. Impact on the Right to Exclude: Diminution of Property Rights

Core Principle: The right to exclude is a foundational property right, allowing owners to control uses via covenants, leases, or agreements, this bill erodes that foundational right, forcing uses on certain property owners.  What will be the next "essential" need the government will have for a private property?  This foot in the door would set precedent not welcome to property owners or society.

Bill's Effect: Forces owners to permit grocery/pharmacy uses if zoning allows, overriding private restrictions without compensation.

Analogies to Broader Essential Services:

Where is the limit to how a property owner should prioritize service to the public over property rights?  Would these situations also be a "concern" to the legislature?

Storefronts: Extending to general retail would limit control over tenant mixes, devaluing specialized developments and eroding bargaining power in leases.

Small Acute Care or Dental Clinics: Would override restrictions on healthcare uses, prioritizing public access but imposing nuisances (e.g., traffic, privacy concerns) and reducing flexibility for highest and best use.

Related Freedoms:

Leasing: Constrains lease clauses, leading to involuntary tenant changes and potential income loss.

Highest and Best Use: Redirects properties toward state-favored essentials, limiting market-driven optimization.

Takings Implications: Regulatory in nature; unlikely to succeed under Penn Central factors (partial impact, police power justification), but broader application risks substantive due process challenges.

III. Governance Implications: Socialism vs. Capitalism and Freedom

Spectrum Analysis:

Capitalism: Emphasizes private ownership and minimal intervention; bill curtails contractual freedoms by nullifying voluntary agreements.

Socialism: Involves government control for equity; bill "forces compliance" by designating groceries/pharmacies as "important businesses" and overriding private decisions for public welfare.

Mixed Economy Reality: U.S. blends both (e.g., antitrust laws, zoning), but this bill leans regulatory, promoting competition while ensuring access to certains services to the public—common but requiring scrutiny.

Freedom Concerns:

Enhances market entry and consumer choice, but through restriction of the property owner's preferred use.

Limits property/contractual liberties, potentially allowing government to expand "essential" categories arbitrarily.

Not at Face Value:  The bill needs people to scrutinize based on evidence of market failures (e.g., food deserts) vs. freedom infringements; use checks like constitutional review and democratic processes to call for ammendment or rejection of the bill.  Market failures happen for a myriad of reasons, this one bill will not solve the so called food desert problem, certainly not by itself.  Many market stressors should be addressed before a bill like this would find a successful outcome.

IV. Conclusion: Recommendation for Legislators

Oppose or Amend: The bill erodes core rights and freedoms under the guise of welfare; ensure narrow tailoring, compensation for losses, and evidence-based designations to preserve capitalistic principles.

Call to Action: Protect property owners' autonomy while addressing access through incentives, not mandates.