February 06, 2009
Exurbanite denounces sprawl

State Rep. Sharon Nelson (D-34) had in op-ed in yesterday's Seattle Times complaining that "Suburban sprawl has spread and spread"

Sprawl is also the most expensive way to grow. It means extending roads and building new schools and fire stations where we used to have farms, forests and wetlands....we simply cannot afford the high costs of suburban sprawl.
Nelson knows her sprawl. She lives on Maury Island. Prior to her appointment to the legislature in 2007 she worked for a King County Councilmember at the county courthouse in downtown Seattle, 23 miles from her home.

View Larger Map

It's everybody else's sprawl that's the problem.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 06, 2009 08:02 AM | Email This
Comments
1. HAHAHA, nice one Stefan.
Maybe Sharon would get the hint that sprawl is happening because people are sick of living in Seattle with all of it's problems and ever increasing taxes.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 6, 2009 08:02 AM
2. Decide either the limit the numer of people living in the state or limit the birth rate or a combination of both. Either way, more people can be packed into urban areas requiring schools to add structures for the added population; more teachers hired to accomodate day and swing shift classes; which in turn increases use of roads. On and on... Gee... Any way you look at it, it's a matter of population growth. The cost of anything and everything connected with the support of the population is not dependant on whether they live in urban or suburban locations. Dah!

Posted by: Olympia Blizzard on February 6, 2009 08:07 AM
3. @1: Hardly. For a lot of folks, it's the only housing that's affordable with amenities for children. If you separate that -- and your constant and unrepresentative whining about "taxes" -- from the benefits of more compact development, a lot of these issues can start to be addressed.

@2: Sorry, but sprawl happens regardless of whether there is population growth or not.

Posted by: demo_kid on February 6, 2009 08:29 AM
4. Thanks Sharon but the urban sprawl is to get away from the "ghetto's" that have resulted from packing too many people into a confined space without the infrastructure to support the masses. While I totally agree PDX got much of the sprawl right, the infastruture, fire, police, health and safety and transportation is constrained to the max. And they do have traffic problems, so it is not all as "roses" in the Rose City.
I would love to see light rail from North Bend to downtown, and a route from Redmond/ Carnation to a major hub on the I-90 corridor to tie in with a major line along I-90 to Seattle. And increase the number of trains from Everett to Seattle and Tacoma to Seattle.
Instead ST puts light rail from downtown to the airport. Our county proposes Ferry's from Kirkland to ? or Lake Union. Our politicians talk of more street cars, now that is a convenient form of transporation, and fast too. You can put a rocket on a turtle but it is still at turtle.
We need practical solutions not the crap we have experienced to date.
So Sharon you want support, find viable solutions that meet the curret needs not what sounds good in Olympia. OBTW, bet the commute from Vashon to Oly is fun, taking mass transit by any chance, not!

Posted by: Not the norm on February 6, 2009 08:35 AM
5. 'Sprawl' could be otherwise defined as 'incremental tax avoidance' and/or 'sanity-seeking'. :)

Posted by: Duffman on February 6, 2009 08:39 AM
6. There is only one way to describe anyone who has to ride a ferry and complains about the cost of sprawl - hypocrite.

Posted by: Palouse on February 6, 2009 08:40 AM
7. Hey Sharon, the GMA has made sprawl worse! The Democrats have artificially raised housing prices, encouraged more distant sprawl, and encouraged less environmentally friendly development. So the GMA is bad for the poor, bad for the economy, and bad for the environment. So why aren't Democrats fighting the GMA? This is all about power. The fascists in Olympia want more power.

Posted by: AP on February 6, 2009 08:45 AM
8. I think it's a bit disingenuous to say a representative of a district should live in the closest part of that district to the County Offices because of the commute - and that otherwise they're somehow hypocrites for representing their neighbors relative to addressing sprawl.

How about all the folks representing Eastern Washington traveling to Olympia?

Oh, of course we westsiders are subsidizing their lifestyles from the get go.


Posted by: BA on February 6, 2009 08:53 AM
9. O.K. folks - a great big bunch the faculty and staff of the University of Washington live on Vashon, Maury and the Kitsap Penninsula INCLUDING MORE THAN A FEW in the Urban Planning Dept. Yes folks the very people who hector us about where we choose to live and train class after class of fellow travelers in tactics not unlike those used by various leftwing community organizing groups. Tactics that rely on identifying an "enemy" and then mobilizing teh rabble.

Now for the part you are all going to feel really warm and fuzzy about - these parasites are provided with a U-Pass that is subsidized by a charge added to each and every students tuition bill - yes even if the student lives within walking distance of the school and has no need or want for the U-Pass. They "pay" their ferry fares with a U-Pass that students and their parents are coerced into footing the bill for and the justification is.....drum roll please - the U-Pass is part of the University's "Commute Trip Reduction" plan.

This is not at alll an isolated hypocrissy and furthermore I have pointed this out the the Pee Eye and Seattle times suggesting that they consider doing an investigative report on this scandal and disgrace.

Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2009 09:15 AM
10. Ha... liberals are such idiots. They point their finger and say do as I say and not as I do. It's okay for liberals to commute from Bainbridge Island, Vashon, Kirkland, Bellevue, etc., but it's not okay for anyone else. The plain fact is that liberal policies have led to sprawl. The common worker cannot afford to live in Queen Anne, Green Lake, Ballard, Wallingford, etc. The common worker cannot find safe and clean housing near the city. You compare the quality of housing in the Central District to that of Madison Park or Queen Anne, and you will find a shocking disparity. Of course, there are not enough building inspectors because the Democrats take developer money to prevent enforcement of standards. I'll believe the liberal hype when section 8 housing is available in Queen Anne, Bainbridge, Wallingford, Magnolia, Madison Park. Funny how rich liberal areas don't allow the workers to live among them. Idiots.

Posted by: ThomasB. on February 6, 2009 09:23 AM
11. demo-kid
Hardly. For a lot of folks, it's the only housing that's affordable with amenities for children.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So you agree. People are moving out to give their childern a better place. As I said TAXES!

Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 6, 2009 09:27 AM
12. Stupid question of the day so far:
"How about all the folks representing Eastern Washington traveling to Olympia?" ~ BA
Um, perhaps maybe because they represent the people in the Eastern part of the state.

Rep. Nelson opines:
"Next time you visit Portland, citizens of that city can tell you that when you're not dependent on cars and highways, your stress goes down, along with how much you pay at the pump and time wasted sitting in traffic. What goes up? The time you can spend with your family."

Yet strangely, Ms.Nelson hasn't chosen this utopian lifestyle for herself or her family

"Less sprawl also creates a sense of community. Where people walk instead of drive, neighbors know each other because they see each other every day at the train station, the corner grocery store, the coffee shop. You can build a community when everybody is not driving past each other in their cars.

Ms.Nelson should be let in on the news that leadership by example is the best example of leadership.

"I believe that sense of community is worth having, and that we simply cannot afford the high costs of suburban sprawl."

translation: Don't move out where I'm at and crowd my sprawling space.

Posted by: Rick D. on February 6, 2009 09:36 AM
13. Hey, all that sprawl equals jobs. Somebody has to build all those water and sewer lines, fire stations, roads, etc. Why is spending on those things BAD, while spending on incredibly expensive toy trains GOOD? I guess government spending is good for only liberal approved things.

Posted by: RJK on February 6, 2009 09:46 AM
14. If urban sprawl is so bad, then why are there so many liberals on the eastside? You all should be packing yourself in near the city core.

Posted by: ThomasB. on February 6, 2009 09:52 AM
15. and that otherwise they're somehow hypocrites for representing their neighbors relative to addressing sprawl.

Yes in fact, they are. How many island dwellers do you suppose lives and works on that island? Probably very few. So she's decrying sprawl, while she represents it. That's hypocrisy.

Ferries costs this state's taxpayers millions and millions of dollars every year, alot more than one road out to some suburbs costs to maintain.

Posted by: Palouse on February 6, 2009 09:56 AM
16. Now you see what Liberalism is ... elitism!

It's not that Richard Branson cares about pollution -- from his fleet of jets -- it's just that there are all this middle class "Commoners" filling up the roads trying to get to work.

Posted by: John Bailo on February 6, 2009 10:11 AM
17. After nearly 20 years of urban living I bought a home on the edge of civilization in SE KingCo - more because of price than any specific lifestyle reasons.

As it turns out lifestyle has made a difference. Crime is lower, traffic is less a hassle (except in getting to and from my job), and I like the proximity to the trails and back roads of the Cascades.

And the folks here are less constrained by their political ideology. That's very nice - and quite conducive to more relaxed atmosphere when people gather (albeit less often) or when out shopping.

So Sharon, bring on the sprawl. And what's up with Maury Island sprawl? Didn't realize it was such a problem out there at Gold Beach (unless you count gravel pit sprawl).

Posted by: deadwood on February 6, 2009 10:17 AM
18. "It's everybody else's sprawl that's the problem."

Too true, for these libs.

Posted by: Michele on February 6, 2009 11:19 AM
19. I remember very well the decade which led up to the cloaked, minimally-debated GMA. Subdivisions were going in all over King County, and plaintive cries were heard from the new homeowners that the beautiful woods adjoining them had been knocked down to build more housing for their fellow urban escapees. Somehow the woods removed to provide space for their own houses were edited out of the discussion.

Everyone at the time wanted to be the very LAST person to move to suburban living, and immediately wanted laws passed to deny, to others, the move that they themselves had just made.

What GMA has done with its iron ring around the urbs, is to force the plebians and new immigrants into rabbit hutches inside the rings. That leaves the large parcels outside the rings undevelopable, therefore cheaper - and they furnish perfect country estates for the oh-so-environmentally-conscious planners and lawyers and urban politicians who wish (like most Americans, actually) to live away from the jammed, crime-ridden urban turbulance with its street protests and panhandlers.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 6, 2009 11:32 AM
20. These liberal "sprawl" hypocrites are just like the liberal tax hypocrites who hollar how it "is patriotic" to pay taxes and we should all do it (Uncle Joe Biden's words). Too bad Obambi's nominees (Democrats) don't pay their taxes.

So - tc, demon kid and other libs, for those fellow travellers of yours who do not pay their taxes (Daschle, Geithner and the lot) - NOW can we question their patriotism?

Posted by: pbj on February 6, 2009 01:33 PM
21. To be on the left is the definition of hypocritical. Their policies don't work in the real world, but they espouse them and then live their own lives by real world standards.

Case in point: David Goldstein campaigned endlessly to keep the Graham Hill school open for his daughter. He put in many hours as an involved parent, and in general behaved very much like a conservative, when it was his own daughter's education on the line. Then, when he didn't get his way fast enough, he punted and sent his daughter to school from his ex-wife's home on Mercer Island. Meanwhile, out in public he is a staunch advocate of the kind of progressivism that removes individual responsibility from the public school system and empowers the bureaucracy to focus on anything and everything but education, and all at a much, much higher cost than a typical private school. The same useless bureaucracy that could not figure out that his highly involved community deserved their school is the one he votes for more of every year. As I say, to be on the left is to be a hypocrite. And a fool too.

The left had their tantrums and media backing to gain power. Now that they have control of everything, they have to run everything, and they have to conform to the real world. It's not going to work as they promised because in the real world, value means value.

Sharon Nelson should be forced to live in the urban setting as should all government employees. If you are part of the bureaucracy mandating dense urban housing, massive subsidy for rail transit, etc. then you ought to be supporting it through use. Because if those who are spending all of our money coming up with the statist growth are not proving its worth, then nothing will.

Eyman ought to do an initiative forcing all government employees to use mass transit. That would solve the traffic problems overnight, and justify building out more transit, which they should love.

Ever notice how light the traffic is on government holidays when only the truly productive are still working?


Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2009 02:00 PM
22. Does Rep. Hypocrite Nelson's daddy know she's making the d-caucus look as moronic as factless or wrong on this board?

Maybe Rep. Hypo ought to keep her fingers off the keyboard or at least run this type of garbage past Frank before she blows her own foot off.

Posted by: Hinton on February 6, 2009 02:33 PM
23. I question demo-kid's patriotism!

Posted by: Crusader on February 6, 2009 03:32 PM
24. Wait a minute now ... this is not fair to be criticizing Sharon Nelson. You see, as one of the elite political class, she needs the peace and quiet to come up with idiotic laws. The rest of us don't need that.

Posted by: BananaLand on February 6, 2009 04:41 PM
25. I'll ask Rick D. specifically - should the folks living on Maury Island or Vashon Island have a representative on the County Council or not?

You're OK with the folks in Eastern Washington commuting to Olympia, but you're not OK with anyone representing the outer reaches of their County?

This means that Skykomish, or Marblemount, or Eatonville should never have a resident County Commissioner? How about Forks? It's a long way to Port Angeles.

This is a dumb premise to begin with, and has brought out a rhetorical flourish from everyone but little thoughfulness.

We're seeing whole subdivisions abandoned nationwide as the housing market constricts. It will be interesting to see if the affect of this crash impacts the outer edges of Puget Sound or the central cities more.

Liberal or Conservative - no difference at all when it comes to development - everyone's opposed if it's next door.

So that you can accuse me - I live on one of the islands.

My office is 15 minutes and four stop signs from my house. My communities schools are better than yours, which means the housing prices are higher than yours. And yes, there is Section 8 housing as well as community funded low-income housing here.

Want to stop sprawl. Defund WSDOT for a while - Eyman has been arguably the greatest force toward curbing sprawl in our region than anyone.

Posted by: BA on February 6, 2009 05:57 PM
26. BA,

I'll answer. Yes, people on Maury and Vashon Islands should have representation. The issue is that for years BEFORE she was a representative, Sharon Nelson commuted DAILY to downtown Seattle. She was an exurbanite COMMUTING DAILY.

And now she decries the VERY THING she WILLINGLY DID for YEARS.

It's like the guy who smokes 4 packs a day, then demands that no one smokes at all, because it's bad for the environment.

It gets back to my line: Hypocrisy, thy name is DEMOCRAT.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 6, 2009 06:20 PM
27. BA - of all the people who live on the islands, how many do you suppose make their living there too like you? 5%? 10%? The rest make long commutes from those 'exurbs' to employment centers in Seattle/Bellevue/etc. And the representative who is introducing this legislation represents those people. Until she became a representative, she was one of them too. Decrying sprawl while living on the islands/peninsula is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Posted by: Palouse on February 6, 2009 07:32 PM
28. Wait a minute... didn't she live in the district of the Council member she worked for?

Now I'm all for pointing up the hypocracy of those who oppose development.

Intermission for a famous joke among economists:

How do you tell the difference between an environmentalist and a developer?

The developer wants to build a cabin in the woods. The environmentalist already owns a cabin in the woods.

But if a Council member hires people from her district to work for her (and we want the Council member to live in her district, and yet has to commute to work) then I don't think that's a hypocritical act.

Posted by: Cicero on February 6, 2009 08:15 PM
29. Beautiful article Stefan. They need to be slammed when they produce nonsense like this.

Posted by: Pete on February 6, 2009 08:27 PM
30. BA - Did you think through what you are asking for? If you get rid of WSDOT, there go your ferries to your island.

Posted by: Hmm on February 7, 2009 02:24 PM
31. If you get rid of WSDOT, there go your ferries to your island.

Not at all. WSDOT seized the ferry companies from their private owners, and made commuters dependent on the State and its oh-so-mandated salaries and benefits for ferry workers.

Perhaps a few years of Obama socialism will wake some folks up to the economic realities of it - that is, it costs more and produces less. It's a conspiracy of the governors against the governed.

So, sell the ferries with their infrastructure back to private enterprise (preferably at least two separate companies). Island-hopping will then cost what it really costs, and the rest of us can quit subsidizing it. Watch all that picturesque real estate reach an affordable price, now that the whole state isn't plundered to subsidize the island life style.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 7, 2009 05:01 PM
32. Hinton, what did you say I was asking for?

Where did I ask for anything?

Posted by: BA on February 7, 2009 08:44 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?