The '98 Land Use Plan--9 Myths Unveiled
We live here by choice. "Most people believe they reside in a park," is the way one former county commissioner saw it after a tumultuous term in office. We do live in a park, and a majority of us, it seems, feel a sense of stewardship, an obligation to do what we can to keep our park from being suburbanized. So land planning is a serious, though complicated, subject. Unfortunately, no instruction book came with the county. We have to write one. There is a DRAFT Land Use Plan on the table of our county government right now. It starts with the citizens Vision: "that these rural islands are an extraordinary treasure of natural beauty and abundance, and that independence, privacy, and personal freedom are values prized by islanders."
In the months ahead the DRAFT Plan will be refined. There are already more than a few myths in circulation about the Plan. Let's unveil the main myths so they don't get in the way of clear thinking on the central matter at hand, namely, land use and allowable population. As John F. Kennedy put it: "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie-deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth-persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
Myth 1. Property values will fall if we adopt a truly "rural" plan. This is highly unlikely. A tight plan that eliminates further subdivisions will simply mean we will see expensive, big parcels of land for sale rather than expensive smaller ones. But the result will be fewer cars, people, congestion, taxes, and demands for urban amenities like fast-food establishments. The record throughout the West is consistent: Tight (low-density) land use plans enhance property values.
Myth 2. A tight plan means a loss of local control. This is a favorite spun by a few local realtors. Of course we all know they have themselves in mind when it comes to who controls "local control." Our Land Use Plan has probably had more citizen input than any such plan in the State. And islanders have spoken overwhelmingly: Keep San Juan County rural.
Myth 3. Future growth will be self supporting. This has never happened. Both our taxes and our cost of living are going to escalate if (and because) we adopt a plan that allows the population to swell toward the 48,000 people in the DRAFT Plan.
Myth 4. Growth is inevitable
so we might as well prepare for it. This is probably true
up to the point that each existing parcel could have one living
unit on it. This would give us an eventual build-out population
of 25,000-twice what we have now. But we can draw the line at
25,000 if we cease any further subdivision of land in the county.
Myth 5. Property rights are sacred. Not so. Individuals
make investments in land just as they make them in stocks, bonds,
and rare coins. There are risks involved; timing is one of them.
Land use classifications and allowable residential densities
(units per acre) come and go as people in communities learn how
growth dilutes what they treasure. Property rights do not include
subdividing rights that go on indefinitely. And citizens are
not obligated to insure that potential subdividers' bets pay
off at the expense of the citizens' own quality of life.
Myth 6. Old-time islanders won't be able to split their big parcels into smaller pieces for their children. This one twangs the heart strings, but like the other myths, it has scant substance. The county subdivision code allows gifts of portions of land to family members without going through the subdivision dance.
Myth 7. There is some sleight of hand (like TDRs- Transfer Development Rights) that will enable subdividers to gain their investment objectives without doing harm to the San Juans. TDRs are an example of the search for a free lunch. They are based on the notion that we voters need to find a way "to compensate owners for any limitations on their right to develop their land to the traditional best and highest economic use of the land." This notion became obsolete in 1976 when a Shoreline Plan was first adopted by county voters. The idea that economics is the guiding star for everything is history. The "best and highest'' use of San Juan County land is now defined by its residents in their Vision statement.
Myth 8. GMA is the bad guy. Untrue. Our State's Growth Management Act authors got it right. In effect the Act says we taxpayers can have all the growth we want if we put in the parking, trash handling, wide roads, law enforcement, schools, social services, water systems, and so on required to support the resulting population. Otherwise, we should not allow our precious piece of the earth to be carved up into any more little pieces. Most of the people I talk to do not wish to urbanize the county, to make it like "everyplace else." A good portion of the people I speak with are interested in helping make the Vision statement come true.
Myth 9. Getting a strong,
rural Land Use Plan is someone else's responsibility-the politicians,
the Friends of the San Juans, our Land Bank's Board, tree huggers,
or Unfortunately, we can't pass the buck. The new Plan is
happening on our watch. Let's not let history declare that we
who are here now found San Juan County a place of beauty and
left it a place of beauty spots.
There is more to the subject Plan than land use, but allowable
population is the driving factor in our quality of life, for
better or worse. It is the number of people in San Juan County
that directly affects the cost of groceries, water supply, tax
rates, parking availability, ferry wait times, law enforcement
needs, privacy-in short, our lifestyle. The myths are unveiled.
Don't sit this dance out.
Copyright © 1999, 2003 Steven C. Brandt.
|
|
| BUILDING A BUSINESS | NON- PROFITS |
NEWSLETTERS | CEO Q and A |
LIVING FULLY |
PHOTO GALLERY |