In the last 50 years the population growth in residential terms had to go to the suburbs, and created the ‘greater Seattle’ that we see today. As I recall, Bellevue was just incorporated in 1953, and by the end of the ’70’s it and Kirkland were almost fully built out. With their borders confined, the growth moved on to Redmond, Woodinville and the Plateau. Then in the 80’s we got concerned about ’sprawl’ and passed the Growth Management Act

Seattle population, 1965: 650,000

It dove from there.

When did it get back to 650,000?

2005.

It’s now about 680K.

What does that say about growth management? (Can you say “sprawl”?)

I have to admit to getting a bit tired of having people tell me that I said something that I didn’t, or that I favor something that I don’t. I would be delighted to hear that someone thinks we should try to better understand the consequences of these acts, and maybe learn something that would be useful going forward.

I tried to give a constructive response to Gene’s fair challenge, but that seems to have gotten lost. Oh well…

I think its fair to say that you posted on the study without fully appreciating its content (including its title). Gene and Colin correctly called you on it. I say wipe the egg off your face, recognize your error, and move on. Don’t defend the indefensible.

As for the substance of your latest comment, there is a real disparity. You note that 4 townhouses on a formerly SFR lot “may not have been the original residents’ choice.” So, apparently, you favor zoning that would prohibit this denser development, or at a minimum you want to preserve the existing zoning. But your larger point is that the government often over-utilizes its inherent power over an individual land owner. You are suspicious of the government telling you what is best for you. So why is a zoning change, which allows the owner GREATER flexibility in regards to development of the parcel, bad? This strikes me as inconsistent.

David, I used to be a geologist working the Pinedale area for Superior Oil – sounds like it sure looks different now

Gene, trying to figure out how to make government policy that will have all the desired consequences and none of the undesired ones, or unintended ones, seems devilishly difficult.

Two things I think might be worth thinking more about are 1) having a managed but moving development growth boundary the way Snohomish County does it, and 2) having some way for cities to trade development growth rights/obligations so that they don’t have to do weird things to meet their growth quota within their own limited area. Another example of weird is Seattle having to rezone big chunks of the Greenwood area to allow tearing down older homes on 16,000sf lots to put up 4 new townhomes on 4,000 sf lots. Helps meet their growth quota, increases jobs and tax revenues, may not have been the original residents’ choice.

I note that there has never been a systematic evaluation of the benefits and issues associated with the Growth Management Act, its 14 stated policy goals, and all the following acts and regulations that it spawned. Its very breadth gives local government, often fondly known as the last bastion of piracy in the United States, license to design and enforce almost any policy they want without necessarily understanding all the consequences. For an interesting article on the need for a review, read ‘Is the Growth Management Act Working?’ written by Brian Houskeeper, Policy Analyst for the Center for the Environment, and published in January of this year by the Washington Policy Center -www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/environment/legislativememo/GrowthManagementAct.pdf.

I do like green, and I do think growth should be managed, but neither of those viewpoints should be considered an unfettered license.

It’s simple. A bank, with the help of a developer, created a product. The bank makes the construction loan on a thousand units. The builder takes draws, the loan is paid out, and the end user, the buyer, pays off the loan. For about six years this was a great money maker for banks and developers. It was a game to see how much the end product would sell for. The first units may sell for $450K while the later units sold for $600K.

The end user is left paying for the whole mess.

Planned development became the game that pushed up prices. It did have an impact on all new construction. Material costs sky rocketed even though the cost of supply was greatly reduced with Home Depot and Lowes. They could in turn kind of control the supply of materials by their big bulk purchasing power.

Just as an aside, planned development also reached into every corner of the country. You can go to Butte Montana and see little pockets of sidewalks with a few scattered houses. We own some land in Pinedale Wyoming that has housing development up and down the highway. It just got to be crazy how much money banks would pump into building loans.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10570

The author of that study, is the same person being interviewed in the story you linked to. I’m not putting words into the Cato Institute’s mouth, I am quoting those words directly from the title of their policy document.

If you read my previous comment, I recommend looking at what the market wants – and will want moving forward. This is a Seattle-centric blog, so I used examples from the Seattle region. I’m also not a fan of having the government run my life, but nor am I a fan of subsidizing businesses that provide no long term benefit to the rest of us.

On a topic much more important than “who said what”:

Chuck, based on your bio, you seem to have a lot of experience in this area. What types of things would you propose to help areas like Kirkland have more sane and sustainable development policies?

Thanks,
Gene

Personally, I also don’t want to do is start or base this conversation of a set of reports that are “factually challenged” (to be kind).

Personally, I’d rather look at things like:
1. Built Green and energy efficient homes have held their value much better than others

2. Many urban centers (e.g. West Seattle Junction) are making a comeback as more people realize there is a lot of value in living near: mass transit, walking distance to everything, close to schools, etc More time can be spent with family and community, rather than commuting and in traffic.

3. Resource planning. Energy is not going to get cheaper (e.g. 14% increase in SCL rates was just approved), so being able to reduce energy usage, water usage, etc. will make not just environmental, but also economic sense.

I could go on, but my main point is that trying to simplify the real estate (and consumerism) bubble down to “it’s all urban planning’s fault” completely misses the big picture that we all need to start looking at.

I grew up in the suburbs of NY City – not much better than the suburbs of LA. No decent mass transit, had to drive to get anywhere, people who spend more time in their cars commuting than with their families, etc. I know I’m not alone in re-evaluating what makes me happy, and the “single family home with the white picket fence in the suburbs” that has been marketed to all of us for decades is really losing a lot of its luster. We need to look at what people will want (and need) 5, 10, 15 years from now – not what they think they want right now.

Gene