Coming soon to a downtown street corner, stadium concourse or ferry seating area near you: Clipboard-toting activists – or just as likely, paid signature gatherers wholly indifferent to the cause they’re

representing, but talking a good line nonetheless – asking for your support as they work to right some alleged wrong for the good citizens of Washington.

It’s initiative season, and aggrieved constituencies of all stripes are descending on the Secretary of State’s office with citizen- (or special interest-) drafted measures designed to woo the voters through what’s charitably referred to as “direct democracy.” After a brief review process, initiatives will be assigned the numbers by which they’ll be referred through the campaign season (“I-Whatever”), and sponsors will then be out to drum up the 224,800 signatures required to put them on the fall ballot.

First out of the gate this year is Tim Eyman, with an initiative to restore the god-given right of Washington motorists to pay no more than $30 to register their vehicles. The measure can be thought of as the grandson to I-695, another Eyman spawn from a few years ago that clobbered the state’s Motor Vehicle Excise Tax and with it the better part of the Washington State Ferries budget. As you may have noticed, the state was forced to drum up new sources of revenue to maintain the fleet, and significantly higher ferry fares ensued. Count on the Eyman campaign to similarly gloss over the effects of taking millions out of state coffers via the latest initiative. Which programs might be cut? You’ll hear nary a word, and legislators will be left to clean up the mess should the initiative pass.

You may also be hearing from signature-gatherers in the employ of the Washington Farm Bureau, which late last year announced plans to put a property rights initiative on the fall 2006 ballot. The measure – envisioned to require state and local government to reimburse landowners whenever regulatory actions have some negative effect on property values – is fueled by pique in some rural areas over buffer requirements around streams and other protected areas.

Trouble with this initiative is, it’s unnecessary. The principle of regulatory “takings” – that is, the point at which a government action leaves a property devoid of reasonable uses – is well established in the courts, and protects landowners just fine. We’re heartened to recall that about 10 years ago, faced with a similar measure crafted with the sole purpose of making land-use regulations too expensive to enforce, Washington voters said “no thanks.” We don’t think voters have become any more gullible in the meantime (Eyman’s crowd notwithstanding). In fact, they’ve shown good sense, defeating one anti-environmental initiative that would have steered 90 percent of transportation funds to road projects (essentially, the Paving Company Full-Employment Act), and more recently, a measure that would have curbed needed hikes in the gasoline tax.

We suspect the state’s voters will show similar wisdom should the new crop of initiatives make the ballot. But we could save ourselves the trouble of voting “No” by thinking twice now, when the initiative clipboard is shoved in our face.

Just decline to sign.