We are approaching the twenty year anniversary of the Growth Management Act. I know that because I was a city councilmember in Snohomish in 1991 when it was first adopted. I was the Snohomish representative to Snohomish County Tomorrow’s Steering Committee from 1991 through 1995.
The idea of “growth management” was foreign to most of us and the state legislature didn’t provide much guidance with their intent other than the thought that we needed to get better organized.
Leadership in our state has not changed much in the past twenty years; the Democrats are still controlling everything as they have continuously since John Spellman left office in 1985.
For most of the cities here in Snohomish County, there was no need for the state to devise a growth management process, the cities weren’t aggressively promoting growth.
Snohomish County was probably a big reason for the Growth Management Act passing since the county was promoting growth on any and every piece of land they had control over.
Even today Snohomish County is working to undermine growth management north of Lake Goodwin. Representative Hans Dunshee from the 44th District and County Councilmember Dave Somers from Council District 5 are lobbying the legislature to create an allowance for another brand of cluster developments. In an effort to increase density in a clearly rural part of the county, elected officials from the other end of the county are pushing for a way to benefit one significant developer in exchange for nothing. Current county regulations reportedly will allow 600 homes to be built on about 2000 acres. My quick math tells me that already the acres per home are below the minimum 5 acres required in a rural area. If this initiative is successful the acres per home will decrease to about 1.
This plan stinks for a lot of reasons, but if only one or two property owners are the beneficiaries of the action then it might be viewed as spot zoning on a huge scale. Don’t we already work overtime to screw rural residents with efforts to increase zoning in rural areas?
The motivation for the Growth Management Act was to prevent 1-2 acre home sites. The legislature wasn’t real clear about how to implement their vision, but they were clear about reducing rural densities.
I am a little surprised that legislators and county councilmember John Koster who represent voter interests in this discussion are not more involved. If urban development is appropriate for the designated area, add them to Arlington or Marysville’s Urban Growth Area and get on with it. If urban development is not appropriate then keep it rural with minimum lot size of 5 acres.
As a city advocate, I know the pain of complying with mandates of Growth Management as our city struggled to incorporate greater population in a more compact community if the trade-off was the preservation of our rural areas through lower density. We did our part and Snohomish County continues to ignore their obligations even after 20 years.
This Dunshee & Summers deal is another example of how “what’s good for the goose is not always good for the gander”. Snohomish County needs to get out of the Urban Development business. The Growth Management Act is clear that Counties should not be Urban Service Providers.
If all the “Urban” land use designations were eliminated from the county code that would be a good start. Let the cities do the job they have agreed to do without disruption by the county.
Encourage your legislator to defeat this Dunshee Bill.
Posted on February 20, 2011 at 10:03 am in Snohomish County Political Commentary | RSS feed
|
Reply |
Trackback URL
No Loss for Words
Growth Management? Twenty Years of Failure!
by Steve DanaWe are approaching the twenty year anniversary of the Growth Management Act. I know that because I was a city councilmember in Snohomish in 1991 when it was first adopted. I was the Snohomish representative to Snohomish County Tomorrow’s Steering Committee from 1991 through 1995.
The idea of “growth management” was foreign to most of us and the state legislature didn’t provide much guidance with their intent other than the thought that we needed to get better organized.
Leadership in our state has not changed much in the past twenty years; the Democrats are still controlling everything as they have continuously since John Spellman left office in 1985.
For most of the cities here in Snohomish County, there was no need for the state to devise a growth management process, the cities weren’t aggressively promoting growth.
Snohomish County was probably a big reason for the Growth Management Act passing since the county was promoting growth on any and every piece of land they had control over.
Even today Snohomish County is working to undermine growth management north of Lake Goodwin. Representative Hans Dunshee from the 44th District and County Councilmember Dave Somers from Council District 5 are lobbying the legislature to create an allowance for another brand of cluster developments. In an effort to increase density in a clearly rural part of the county, elected officials from the other end of the county are pushing for a way to benefit one significant developer in exchange for nothing. Current county regulations reportedly will allow 600 homes to be built on about 2000 acres. My quick math tells me that already the acres per home are below the minimum 5 acres required in a rural area. If this initiative is successful the acres per home will decrease to about 1.
This plan stinks for a lot of reasons, but if only one or two property owners are the beneficiaries of the action then it might be viewed as spot zoning on a huge scale. Don’t we already work overtime to screw rural residents with efforts to increase zoning in rural areas?
The motivation for the Growth Management Act was to prevent 1-2 acre home sites. The legislature wasn’t real clear about how to implement their vision, but they were clear about reducing rural densities.
I am a little surprised that legislators and county councilmember John Koster who represent voter interests in this discussion are not more involved. If urban development is appropriate for the designated area, add them to Arlington or Marysville’s Urban Growth Area and get on with it. If urban development is not appropriate then keep it rural with minimum lot size of 5 acres.
As a city advocate, I know the pain of complying with mandates of Growth Management as our city struggled to incorporate greater population in a more compact community if the trade-off was the preservation of our rural areas through lower density. We did our part and Snohomish County continues to ignore their obligations even after 20 years.
This Dunshee & Summers deal is another example of how “what’s good for the goose is not always good for the gander”. Snohomish County needs to get out of the Urban Development business. The Growth Management Act is clear that Counties should not be Urban Service Providers.
If all the “Urban” land use designations were eliminated from the county code that would be a good start. Let the cities do the job they have agreed to do without disruption by the county.
Encourage your legislator to defeat this Dunshee Bill.
Rate this:
Share this:
Related
Posted on February 20, 2011 at 10:03 am in Snohomish County Political Commentary | RSS feed | Reply | Trackback URL