Our Schizophrenic '98 Land Use Plan
"Tough job" is the only fair way to describe the mostly thankless work of our three county commissioners. They have to manage roads, public health, land use, a $25,000,000 budget, employees (200+), legal matters, and a lot of nitty gritty. This they do for a modest $50,000 a year-a figure that is only a few notches above the average family income in the county. The commissioners are responsible for our 1998 Land Use ("Comprehensive") Plan, a plan that is fundamentally flawed. The analysis below is an attempt to find a way to fix it, not to fix blame, however.
Our '98 Plan is a blueprint for the future of the county, starting now. It guides the character and pace of any growth. Smack dab on the very cover of our existing Plan is the following Vision that was hammered out by an army of San Juan County residents in an endless series of meetings:
"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."
This Vision captures the essence of what most residents here want, and it is firmly supported by three, county-wide surveys done in the past twelve years. The problem is that when you turn to the inside pages of the '98 Plan, you find a blueprint for development that is the antithesis of the Vision on the cover. The Plan points the way to this county becoming a suburb with 40,000-50,000 people (see Plan, Appendix 1)-five times the existing number. In short, the words and the music do not match. The Plan is schizophrenic, it has a split personality. It espouses "rural," but it lays the groundwork, literally, for suburbia.
To complicate matters further, the plan does not comply with the law of our state of Washington. The State has a Growth Management Act (GMA), which says that counties (and cities) must plan for growth. This means counties must demonstrate that their taxpayers collectively are aware and willing to pay for the wide, straight roads, water systems, police force, parking, trash disposal, and other services required to handle any "planned" population expansion.
Here is how the schizophrenia came to be. During the 100 years from 1870 to 1970 the population of the county grew from 554 to 3,856 people. Prior to 1970, there were few land use regulations. Between 1970 and 1980 our local population more than doubled to 7,838 and the alarm bells started going off both here and across the State where a similar influx of people was occurring. Prodded by the State, the citizens of San Juan County adopted a Shoreline Plan in 1976 and the County's first Land Use Plan in 1979.
The '79 Plan was the product of a lengthy series of neighborhood meetings. I have been told by people who were there that the model for the meetings was this: People who were interested showed up; some spoke up; those who spoke up got what they wanted. So if a landowner with 40 acres wanted to stick with big parcels, he or she got R-40 land use, i.e., one house allowed per forty acres. If a landowner wanted to subdivide, she or he got R-2, i.e., one house allowed on every two acres. Some owners even wanted to do subdivisions, i.e., one house per every half acre-or even less in some cases. This is why we see subdivisions sprinkled randomly around the county today. In summary, the '79 Plan was not a planners plan, it was a "who spoke up" plan. The philosophy was, essentially, almost anything goes. We lived with the '79 Plan until the late '90s.
In April 1990, prodded by a citizens' initiative, our state passed the Growth Management Act ("GMA"). It was aimed at "managing" growth so over-development does not kill the golden goose, the natural beauty and lifestyle of the Great Northwest. GMA mandated counties like ours to update its land use plans to harness the consequences of population growth. Between 1980 and 1990 our permanent population had increased over 25 percent to 10,000, and the peak population, including day visitors, was estimated to be 25,000 in 1995. It was obvious to discerning people everywhere around the state that the continuous influx of people and cars to any community would change its character irreversibly.
The essence of the GMA was and is that all counties (and cities) are going to grow to some degree and they must do so in a manner that preserves the local farms, forests, natural resources, and environment. In short, GMA requires counties like ours to protect the existing quality of life. San Juan County responded by starting a new comprehensive planning process in 1991, a process complete with advisory groups, task forces, steering committees-the whole shebang. There was a great outpouring of sincere effort over several years facilitated by a qualified staff of county planners who knew what and how to do solid planning.
So why did we run aground? How did we end up with a flawed plan that fits neither what the citizens of the county specified nor the laws of the State required? Quite simple. The county commissioners of '90s told our planners they could plan at will so long as they didn't change the residential densities-reduce the total population-allowed in the '79 Plan! This is what actually happened, and it means that the huge planning effort of the last eight years produced a mere, cosmetic overlay on a residential density plan twenty years old, a plan based on who spoke up way back when. Test it yourself. When you look at the "Potential Build-out Population" allowed in the '98 Plan, it is the same as in the '79 Plan. Surprising sad, but true.
So where do we go from here? To start, we need a show of courage and forthrightness at the top. It is nice to see Commissioners John Evans and Rhea Miller taking the lead on this. The '98 Plan needs a decisive overhaul, and it shouldn't be a long, drawn out process. The homework has been done. What 90 percent of the voters want is clearly known; the GMA requirements are clear. Who better than Evans (Orcas Island) and Miller (Lopez & Shaw Islands) to set the pace to "recognize 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."
Copyright © 1999, 2003 Steven C. Brandt.
|
|
| BUILDING A BUSINESS | NON- PROFITS |
NEWSLETTERS | CEO Q and A |
LIVING FULLY |
PHOTO GALLERY |