All the Free Lunches Have Been Eaten
The cover of the '98 Land Use Plan contains this Vision statement hammered out by many San Juan County citizens working many hours:
"Werecognize 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."
Let's concentrate on rural, the feature that makes the values obtainable. Rural is not half-acre or two-acre lots lined up side by side on a street or road, even a curving one. Such development is obviously urban, and this view is backed by the law of our land. Our State of Washington's Growth Management Act ("GMA") Board has consistently found that residential densities greater than one dwelling unit per five acres are urban, not rural. Our current Plan allows way too much urban density across our islands; that is why the Plan is now in limbo. Urban density leads to overpopulation that strangles the values we prize as islanders.
The bind we are in is spelled out in Table 20 of Appendix 1 of the '98 Plan. The Potential Build-out Population of Existing Parcels in San Juan County with "No Further Subdivision" is 20,000 people in the year 2014, about twice the number as now. BUT, with the Full Subdivision of "Uplands likely to be Developed" the population swells to 48,000 in the first half of the coming century. It seems to me that even 20,000 will put a huge strain on our expressed value system-rural living, independence, privacy, and personal freedom. The way out of the bind is obvious. The allowable residential density on the "Uplands to be Developed" needs to be reduced dramatically. Doing so is the only practical way we can remain a rural county. There is no free lunch.
We do have urban areas in the county, and we need them. Friday Harbor is one. It has 719 developed parcels and 1171 undeveloped ones, all on 640 precious acres. Some of the parcels are as small as 9,000 square feet, less than a fourth of an acre. Please note: There are over a thousand undeveloped pieces of land in Friday Harbor at the moment. Thus there is no objective case for the irreversible subdivision of additional rural acreage on San Juan Island (outside of Friday Harbor) such as the massive dose allowed in the current '98 Plan.
How about Eastsound on our neighboring, Orcas Island? It is classified as a village in the Plan, along with Orcas Landing and Lopez Village on Lopez Island. The Eastsound Planning Area has roughly 329 developed parcels and 229 vacant ones, all on 611 acres-almost the same acreage as Friday Harbor. Approximately fifty percent of Eastsound has an allowable density of one single-family residence per half acre. Another twenty percent of Eastsound allows from six single-family residences up to eight multiple-family residences per acre-essentially a residence per 7,000 square feet of land. And twenty percent of the remaining acreage is "Eastsound Rural" at one residence per five acres.
In total, there are currently about 1,400 vacant parcels in the two, more urban-like centers in our county. For many solid reasons, it makes sense to keep any population growth concentrated in these areas.
Enough analysis. It's time to take on the private property rights subject. Most of the flaws in our current Land Use Plan are there because of superficial thinking on this subject by otherwise bright people. Let's look at an example. Suppose I own forty acres in our county. Further suppose there other private property owners on three sides of me and a village boundary on my fourth side. My land is approved for, say, residential use. This means, right away, that I can't construct a motor raceway or bungee tower because my fellow citizens say I can't. I can only construct residences. Let's say my current allowable density is R-5 which means I can put up to eight houses on my forty acres, one every five acres.
Next, suppose our county decides to update its land use plan in an orderly fashion. Here are three possible "property rights" issues that could arise as a result of the process:
Alternative 1. After many hearings the citizens of the county in their wisdom decide that my forty acres should become a park to serve the village next door. They decide that I can build no residences. Is some property right violated? Do the citizens owe me money since I can no longer sell eight pieces as country club estates?
Alternative II. After many hearings my fellow citizens, through their elected officials, up zone my land to R-2 which means I can now put twenty houses on it. (Whoopee!) Do I owe the county taxpayers for the windfall they have created for me? Do I owe my three neighbors something for the degradation I will cause to their lifestyle (privacy, etc.) if I put in twenty units (70 people, 40 cars, etc.) and overwhelm the natural, rural character of the area?
Alternative III. After many hearings the citizens down zone my land to R-40 (one unit on my forty acres) in response to the pending population crush. I missed my window of opportunity to subdivide. Do the citizens owe me something because my personal, land investment program didn't pan out?
Chances are good that most
of us answered "yes" to Alternative I (my land was
"taken" for a park); "no" to number II (I
don't have to pay for the windfall or pay my neighbors); and,
after deliberation, "no" to Alternative III as well.
Investments in land are no different than investments in stocks,
bonds, or abalone futures. There are risks involved; timing is
one of them. Land use classifications and residential densities
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. Times change.
Copyright © 1999 Steven C. Brandt.
|
|
| BUILDING A BUSINESS | NON- PROFITS |
NEWSLETTERS | CEO Q and A |
LIVING FULLY |
PHOTO GALLERY |