Island Guardian

Friday, August 25th

Governor Holds Key to Affordable Housing

At a recent town hall meeting in Puyallup, Governor Christine Gregoire fielded a question from a young Enumclaw teacher expressing concern with the state's skyrocketing home prices. The teacher told Gregoire that he and his wife could not afford to buy a house and quizzed the governor on what could be done to lower the cost of housing.

In her response, Gregoire said she can't do much about the rising cost of housing, but promised to try passing a budget that would provide more money for teachers next year. We at the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) believe the governor's response is too focused on throwing money at special interest groups and not at solving the problem.

Providing more money for teachers, or any other profession, simply doesn't address the core issue of our state's affordable housing crunch. The problem and the solution are one and the same—government. Government taxes, rules and regulations are a primary cause of the affordable housing crunch. And government (translation: Governor Gregoire) can be the solution.

From high workers' compensation and unemployment insurance taxes, to layers of redundant land use regulations, the laundry list of factors that chip away at affordable housing is extensive. While all of these issues need to be addressed, here are two things Governor Gregoire can do right now that would have an immediate and noticeable impact on the availability of affordable housing.

1. Release Buildable Lands: Let's face it—the state's Growth Management Act has done more to harm affordable housing than any other issue. Since its implementation in 1992, the GMA has, under the banner of "smart-growth," artificially restricted the supply of "buildable land" available for constructing new housing. Compounding the problem, other myriad government regulations enacted since then have further decreased the already limited "buildable land" inventory. This artificially restricted supply of land, combined with the increased demand resulting from more jobs being created, has resulted in a serious shortage of land available for accommodating even moderate growth.

My Econ 101 Professor taught me that anytime you reduce supply, without a corresponding reduction in demand, prices will rise. So it goes in Washington State, a laboratory for environmentally-driven growth management that has artificially reduced the inventory of buildable lands and made new housing all but out of reach for the average person. A study by the Reason Public Policy Institute, a nonpartisan public policy think tank, concluded the GMA increased home prices in Washington State by 26 percent from 1995-2001.

Disregarding the fact that over 92% of the land in Washington is undeveloped, the government has embarked upon a frenzied effort to confiscate land to the detriment of affordable housing. By allowing cities to replace areas put off-limits by new environmental regulations with a like amount of non-sensitive land, builders can attempt to meet the affordable housing needs of our citizens. Governor Gregoire can and should free up land.

2. Eliminate Impact Fees: Impact fees are fees tacked onto the cost of a newly constructed house to pay for the occupants' supposed impact on the area's roads, parks and schools. Depending on the jurisdiction, impact fees can range from a few thousand dollars to over $20,000. Not coincidentally, jurisdictions charging impact fees typically boast the least affordable housing markets.

But because impact fees are charged only on new homes, not on existing homes, they don't ensure those who have a new impact on a community actually pay to mitigate that impact. Here's an example: A family with six school age children could move into Olympia from elsewhere, purchase an existing "family" home and pay no impact fee, even though they will be impacting the city's schools, roads, parks, etc. Meanwhile, an "empty-nester" couple that sells that "family home" in Olympia and purchases a newly constructed "move-down home" up the street, will pay exorbitant impact fees, even though they are having no new impact (in fact—they've already paid for it!). This is hardly a fair and efficient way to pay for growth.

There you have it. Two key ways for Governor Gregoire to help make housing more affordable for working families. .

Jeff Hansell
Olympia

[more..]

SJC's Great Planning Disaster

It's time to junk the Eastsound and Lopez Village Urban Growth Areas (UGAs)!
The State Growth Management Hearings Board(GMHB) has repeatedly ruled SJC noncompliant with Washington's Growth Management Act(GMA). It has been seven years since Commissioners Miller, Evans and Nielsen committed SJC to wholesale urbanization, yet the County remains as far away from approval as ever. A county as small as ours will never be honestly able to meet the State requirements for water, sewer, environmental protection, financial viability etc., that UGAs demand. It's time to bring this money-wasting boondoggle to an end.

In 1999 SJC's first comprehensive plan was rejected by the GMHB. That plan had Friday Harbor as the only UGA in the County. Lopez Village and Eastsound were "Areas of More Intensive Rural Development"(AMIRDs). The Board found this first plan noncompliant because (among other reasons) the two AMIRDs were a bit too large. Rather than simply shrinking the two AMIRDs, the BOCC rezoned them as UGAs and since has frequently claimed that the GMHB "required" this.

As if to highlight the shortsightedness of County policy, in July 2006 the Planning Dept. released the results of a survey of SJCs critical areas by a consultant. The study recommends that all of SJC be designated a Critical Aquifer Resource Area due to the high susceptibility of our aquifers to contamination and warns of drainfield effluent already showing up in aquifers on San Juan, Orcas and Lopez. Couple this with the warnings we have gotten from the USGS and the State Dept. Of Ecology(DOE) about salt-water intrusion, and it becomes quite clear that dense urban "development" would be a disaster in SJC.

Sea level rise is another threat that has only surfaced since the UGAs were first designated (it's already risen by at least 20cm.) The geometry of the seawater - freshwater boundary near the shoreline is such that "....a 50cm. rise in the sea level causes [a] 20 meter reduction in the freshwater thickness...." (See Seawater Intrusion in Coastal Aquifers Jacob Bear et al eds.

Urbanization, which the authorities euphemistically term "growth", "development" or even "progress", always takes place at the expense of the vast majority of existing residents. To make "development" schemes like UGAs seem palatable, therefore, they all require a coating of "affordable housing" whitewash. In fact, UGAs make it even more difficult for ordinary working people to live in SJC. By far, the largest single factor working against the "affordability" of houses is the price of land. And the largest single factor governing the price of a plot of land is the number of houses or "dwelling units" you are allowed to build on it. When a local government rezones a plot from a density of two houses per acre, for instance, to eight or even sixteen (if you include guest houses) the price soon goes up by hundreds of percent. The Lopez Village and Eastsound UGAs amount to an invitation to all comers to make as much money as they can in the shortest possible time - at the expense of the people living in and around the proposed UGA now.

The "affordable housing" enthusiasts have also forgotten that the cost of living is much less in a rural environment. No sewer, water or garbage fees to pay, you can let your old cars rust by your house, grow a food garden and have a few chickens etc. This is what makes SJC so important. It's a place where one can live a rural lifestyle in the midst of the "Greater Puget Sound" urban nightmare. That's something worth preserving. Living close to nature isn't a luxury, but a fundamental source of sanity and order. People who can't afford a house in SJC need financial help, not incarceration in a "project" that keeps them from ever having the comfort and security of owning property.

Friday Harbor is a real urban area, but it can only function (barely) because it has sufficient surface water resources at Trout Lake and enough population to provide the necessary "cash cow" to help pay for the required and expensive infrastructure. Lopez Village has no surface water and barely 80 households. Orcas Island could, in theory, supply an Eastsound UGA with surface water, but the sources are too far away and too ecologically sensitive to be used. The State DOE will never allow this.
The whole concept of building cities on islands that have only wells as a water source, very limited transportation links and minuscule financial resources can only lead to an ecological, financial and public health disaster. To people in power urbanization is a religion, and they believe in it because it increases their power. But if SJC were a place where the people governed and the government obeyed, UGAs could never happen.

Steve Ludwig
Lopez

[more..]

Monday, August 21st

"Friends" Win… County Citizens Lose

The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board has ruled against the citizens of San Juan County and approved the Friend's/Council guesthouse ordinance.

The Hearings Board chose to ignore the backroom dealings, the off the record contacts between the Friends and individual Council members and the failure of the Council to follow proper public process. The Growth Board apparently wasn't concerned with the Councils penchant for amending the Unified Development code outside the GMA process and the selective and exclusionary nature of the new guesthouse ordinance. The three -Governor appointed- Growth Board members came to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter to what extent the three County Council members failed the citizens of San Juan county. The ordinance, to the eyes of the Growth Board, does not significantly interfere with their, (the Growth Boards), agenda, so they lifted their order of invalidity.

It isn't all over yet, although most of us wish it was. The next step is a hearing on November 8th when those of us who have filed Petitions for Review will have a chance to demonstrate just how screwed up this ordinance is, and how flawed the process of adopting it has been. Will this make a difference? It is hard to say. It appears that to the old saw of "the ends justify the means" is going full throttle with the Governor's appointees.

The ordinance the Friends/Council passed, and the Growth Hearings Board approved, is unfortunate, not just because it shortchanges the citizens of San Juan County. It is unfortunate for lost affordable house opportunities. It is unfortunate because it means some folks will be clear-cutting and blasting to get their guesthouse within the prescribed distance from their primary residence. It means that people will chose to build bigger homes…especially on the shoreline…to incorporate guest apartments that otherwise would have been a small cabin back in the woods.

This reminds me of the recent discriminatory decision in Chicago, (now being reconsidered), to require the "big box stores" to pay a minimum of $13.00 per hour to their employees. Chicago's elected geniuses have now discovered that the new stores that were going to be built have been cancelled. Their citizens will not have the jobs that the stores would have provided or the more reasonably priced goods the stores sold… not to mention the lost tax revenue for city coffers. OOPS!

Failure to think through the logical outcome of legislation doesn't surprise many in San Juan County who have watch the three Councilmen flail around on one issue after another. Unfortunately, we all have to suffer the consequences.

John Evans
Olga
[more..]