Former Snohomish County Councilman Jeff Sax recently penned a commentary on the growth issues facing the county. One point in particular bears mention in the broader debate on such issues throughout the Puget Sound area:
The voters who just elected [two new members of the Snohomish County Council] (all of whom live with in the urban growth boundary) by and large did so due to the "smart growth," anti-development message that both men expressed in their campaign messages. However, state law and the county comprehensive plan requires that 85 percent of the new population growth be added to those very urban growth boundaries inside of which those voters reside.
The root of the problem is that the very same environmentalist-aligned politicians who supported the Growth Management Act now tend to oppose the actual growth the legislation expects of localities within the urban growth boundary.
Recently elected Snohomish County Councilman Mike Cooper exemplifies the trend. His service in Olympia as a state legislator and his time on the campaign trail for Public Lands Commissioner in 2004 reads like a serial quest to please the Sierra Club & Co. Yet, he ran his last campaign on a decidedly anti-growth platform, including mailers picturing a public notice of development covered with the words "Not on my watch!"
If the very same people who brought us the GMA bow to NIMBYism and refuse to embrace the logical consequences of their own favored policies, this region is going to struggle mightily to find the balance necessary to cope with incoming population growth without a notable decline in the livability of our communities.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 01, 2008 05:11 PM | Email ThisThanks for the post, great point.
--New Left Conservative #1
Posted by: new left conservative #1 on January 1, 2008 06:39 PMWhy did you endorse the guy who was endorsed by Sierra Club & Co. in the last council election, when I openly adocated for moving the UGA in order to relieve denisity burdens on already highly developed communities like Edmonds?
I have not been inconsistent on this issue. I openly advocated for moving the UGA so our kids would have a an affordable place to live, and I did it in a council for all to hear me.
Yet, you endorsed the democrat. Make a choice man. Either drop this issue, or act consistently.
-Dave Orvis
Posted by: Dave Orvis on January 1, 2008 09:21 PMWhere exactly did Eric endorse Mike? From what I've noticed, the two are like oil and water.
I think that you will find you are horribly mistaken. I think the archives will be helpful.
Posted by: Chris on January 1, 2008 09:47 PMBut for businesses or developments which aren't "essential" (that is, normal residential growth, or businesses, or any other item that provides lodging or jobs), then the dice are loaded against the poor suckers who propose those benefits to society. How? The intrusive public-commentary process that gives veto power over such proposals to whoever can raise enough NIMBY protests at the public hearings. This weakness of the GMA process was predicted long ago by folks who still understood the law of supply and demand, but their voices were easily shouted down in the stampede to saddle Washington with "smart" growth controlled by the anointed.
GMA was a successful ploy to seize the American dream from those horrible property owners, and deliver it into the tender clutches of unelected, oh-so-wise socialist planners.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on January 1, 2008 10:31 PMPlus, all of that doesn't detract from the broader issue that many of the same folks who supported the GMA now oppose much of the growth its implementation requires. This post is about a broader regional issue, not the dynamics of one specific local race that should be viewed through the prism of more than one issue.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 2, 2008 07:45 AMI suppose we will always have no growthers or NIMBY types. Now, it seems, they are hanging their hat on concurrency and the traffic congestion on the freeways and arterials. That will be the take of Cooper and Orvis.
Edmonds, BTW, is one of those cities that flaunted their non-conformance to GMA. One of the biggest scams in the County was the County Executive with his 'appointed' Snohomish County Tomorrow cohorts getting together and divvying up the required population goals. In this scam Edmonds and Lynnwood thumbed their noses at GMA. Lynnwood went further and put a moratorium on high density and went with large lot sizes.
Sometimes, these cities made their goals through annexation. Go figure. What a worthless system we have.
Posted by: swatter on January 2, 2008 08:20 AMI live in Mukilteo and I too wonder what direction our leaders will head?
Can you scary.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 2, 2008 09:07 AMThe billions and billions of unfunded infrastructure added to the books since 1990 is not GMA's fault. It is the fault of the lobbyists and government officials who have manipulated their hand-crafted bureaucracies into ignoring their responsibilities to perform honest impact analysis and impose honest impact fees. Instead they use every trick imaginable to cheat, hide or simply ignore impacts so we get the growth without the necessary infrastructure. Then they come to the taxpayers and tell us we have to fix the mess.
It's always about the money!
Posted by: MJC on January 2, 2008 10:28 AMMaybe the bureaucrats are a little slow in implementing the improvements? I heard that was an issue- i.e. all the impact fees were just sitting in an account and not being used.
And MJC, to be honest to the bureaucracies, how could anyone have imagined the huge influx of people in the last ten years. Would you suggest we put them on boxcars and ship them back or should we have had a wall at the borders of the state?
Posted by: swatter on January 2, 2008 10:40 AMThe ironic thing about this subject is that if we had a free market, there would be less urban sprawl. Developers would be able to put in some awfully nice condos and rental units, going 40 stories high or more, in places like Madison Park, Alki, and downtown along the waterfront in Seattle and other very desirable spots in the other big cities. These would not be so expensive, the market would see to that. They would lure home-seekers back toward the population centers.
This would be helped by the increased cost of auto-commuting since driving would no longer be subsidized by the use of property and other general taxes to pay for the roadway.
Other infrastructure services would cost more further from the urbanized centers as well. This isn't quite as relevant here, but it would be great if the burden of fire-fighting could be shifted to those who live in non-urban lands throughout the West, but the federal taxpayer appears to be delighted to pick up much of that tab.
Thanks all, new left conservative
It's always been an amusing myth that life wouldn't exist out here in the country without subsidized roads. A typical city way of thinking that tends to forget little necessities like food, raw materials, etc.
I like to tell people I live 30 miles and 100 years outside of Seattle. Would the roads to my house exist without the subsidized roads?
The answer depends on whether you think that people would still be eating steak, drinking milk, eggs, etc. There's also some pretty good vegetable farmers in this area and some mining operation over on the hill not to far from my place. All of these various operations still require trucks and I see the them moving past my house every day.
You have got a point that there might be fewer roads - and that would be okay with me. I'm sure the little towns would probably create their own road projects that would cater to our needs instead of those of the weekend bicyclists that screw up traffic each weekend.
The last city owned road I drive between Seattle and my place is about 2 miles from home, and we manage to keep those last few miles quite well thank you very much. (The people I know who come see me from places like Green Lake are often quite jealous.) It's not impossible to do road projects without Seattles help, and lord knows we don't carry the overhead you guys do with your $15 an hour wages so that people can hold a sign. (Something that an efficient business would have automated years ago.)
I personally wish that we would abolish cities. I hate the idea that my taxes go towards things like needle exchange programs, $25 million automated portapotties/drug dens, anti-gang programs, luxurious stadiums and arenas that sit empty for months at a time, etc.
I guess I'm smart enough to realize cities have their place, but the people who live there sure can be myopic sometimes. .
Posted by: johnny on January 2, 2008 05:26 PMSax is overly simplistic, as usual. There's plenty of space within the urban growth area of Snohomish County for the people headed there.
And I don't think there's any state law requiring that 85% of population growth be in the urban area of Snohomish County.
Posted by: redflag on January 2, 2008 05:40 PMThis is what a Crooked Politician is all about.
PS: I miss Stefen's addiction to bringing these crooks to justice, and I will welcome him back to expose these idiots ASAP.
Read it from the Seattle Times and weep, this guy Sim's don't give a crap about controlling growth, he cares about his massive campaign contributions and continuing massive property tax hikes!
BIG LAND DEAL, BIG QUESTIONS!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004103452_donuthole02m.html
Posted by: GS on January 2, 2008 07:24 PM