What's Happened To Local Leadership?
Stand up and be counted. Declare thyself! Damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead. The spirit behind such phrases is in short supply here when it comes to adopting and implementing blueprint for the future-a comprehensive Land Use Plan. Everyone seems to be laying low. No one is out front with the flag. Not one of our three elected county Commissioners is taking a discernable position on the plan that has been adopted after years of analysis, acrimonious debate, legal wrangles, and revision. The planning department has been working furiously in something approaching a policy vacuum. And lately that department is being emasculated. The San Juan Preservation Trust, which many people think is an active force in "preserving" the county, is mute on the central issue of land use and population growth. The Friends of the San Juans group has done quite a bit, publicly and behind the scenes. But this is that organization's platinum chance to act rather than react on a most-central issue. What about our local Democratic and Republican cadres that each, periodically, put Commissioner candidates on the ballot? Not a peep. And our newspapers does speak out on occasionally, but it is not taking a steady stand on implementing the Plan. All is quiet in our small county in the sea. Everyone seems to be waiting for the other guy to make a move and provide a target, or simply waiting and hoping the insidious pressure to urbanize will abate.
The blueprint for the foreseeable future of San Juan County is mostly done. It should be. It was painstakingly assembled between 1994 and 2000 with a humongous amount of citizen input. The Plan falls somewhere inside a triangle. One side of the triangle is the State's Growth Management Act. It says that where population growth is to be allowed, the supporting infrastructure (roads, services, etc.) must be built, too. It also says that "rural" is one house on a minimum of five acres. Another side the triangle is our local Vision Statement knitted together by islanders from all of our islands over a year of meetings. It says the people of this County prefer it to remain rural. The third side is personal property concerns. Several thousand people own San Juan County property. Can each owner put a house on her or his parcel? Can each create (subdivide) and sell lots? All three sides of the triangle are considerations for both planning and implementation.
More importantly, all three sides have to do with population. The flood of people to the State of Washington was the driving force behind the Growth Management Act of 1990. Limiting the gross number of people in and traveling to and from San Juan County is certainly fundamental to our retaining our rural character. And any further subdivision of land increases the potential number of dwelling units in the Islands. Population is the primary determinant of congestion, scenic impairment, and future service requirements-trash trucks, sheriffs, schools, ferries, and all the rest. So we need to look squarely at the population situation.
Our county Commissioners, who
have just recently beheaded our Planning Department, ought to
be able to answer these core questions concerning our blueprint
for the future:
1. How many completed dwelling units are in the county now, including
the extra units by whatever name, guest house, etc?
2. What is the population of the county at this time? We can
all relate to this number-somewhere around 13,000, most likely-for
we are part of it.
3. How many additional dwelling units are currently under construction
or have permits to be built soon?
4. What is the projected population when all the units in #3
are completed and occupied? This number is probably close to
15,000.
5. How many individual parcels, yet undeveloped, exist in the
county? These are parcels (regardless of size) that do not now
have a building permit of any kind.
6. What is the estimated population of the county if one dwelling
unit is built on each one of the parcels in #5? This number is
likely to be 25,000 to 30,000 people.
Let's stop at this point. Suppose the estimated population in #6 is a number greater than 30,000. If so, further consideration of allowing more than one dwelling unit per parcel (regardless of parcel size) is clearly NOT in keeping with our Vision Statement. In addition, allowing more than one unit per parcel would NOT be compatible with the Growth Management Act unless our blueprint also shows how we will expand our road system, ferry capacity, social services, etc.
The technical word for all this is "density." Density means how much "space" does each islander have, how many acres per person. Today we enjoy over seven acres per person (100,000 acres in the County; 13,000 people). As more and more dwelling units are built and the estimated population of 30,000 is approached, the acres of space each of us enjoys will decline toward three acres per person. This is less than half the space we now experience. Our Vision says: "independence, privacy, and personal freedom are values prized by islanders." What do our leaders say? Other communities here and there in U.S.A. are taking a stand against suburbization. We should do the same. I suppose it comes down to whom we elect to the County Commission.
Copyright © 2000, 2003 Steven C. Brandt
|
|
| BUILDING A BUSINESS | NON- PROFITS |
NEWSLETTERS | CEO Q and A |
LIVING FULLY |
PHOTO GALLERY |