A Victory for Freedom

Back in 2006, opponents of I-933, the Property Fairness Initiative, pooh-poohed the concerns of citizens who felt that government was exercising regulatory takings of their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution through acts such as Critical Areas Ordinances and the Growth Management Act.

Today, the Washington State Court of Appeals has vindicated supporters of I-933. The onerous King County Critical Areas Ordinance that requires rural landowners to keep half of their property covered with vegetation has been struck down. The court held that any such ordinance must be tied to the impact of a specific, proposed development.

Now, the court needs to strike down the unfair and expensive Growth Management Act for the same reason.

Growth Management, Isn't

The Growth Management Act was adopted in 1990 because Democrats in the Washington Legislature "found that uncoordinated and unplanned growth posed a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the quality of life in Washington."

As with all pie-in-the-sky social engineering projects liberals adopt, such as telling people where to live, where to shop, what to eat and drink, how much to drive, etc., etc., the GMA has been an unqualified disaster.

In a story Wednesday, the Seattle Times reported that:

In just over three years, Seattle already is halfway to reaching its targeted housing growth for 20 years.

And a few sections of town — Ballard, Eastlake, the Central Area, Greenlake, Lower Queen Anne and downtown — already have exceeded their 20-year targets.

Not surprising really. The Growth Management Act forced densification of core areas by prohibiting development outside "urban growth boundaries." So instead of living in suburbs, as has been the pattern since WWII, people are jamming into Seattle area condos and apartments as fast as developers can build them.

Even stubborn refusal by the Democrats in Olympia to address congestion problems that have resulted in Seattle having the 9th worst traffic in the U.S. has not slowed growth, as prayed for by the treehuggers.

The Growth Management Act should actually have been called the Real Estate Broker and Developers Enrichment Act. Land use regulations, concluded a recent University of Washington study, have added $200,000 to the cost of an average Seattle home. In fact, according to the Washington Center for Real Estate Research, housing prices have appreciated significantly statewide since the passage of the GMA. Affordable housing for young families is scarce and growing scarcer.

Silly leftists, Trix are for kids. The Law of Unintended Consequences is immutable. People are like water. They are inexorable, constantly defy expectations, and always find the path of least resistance. God Himself gave us free will. If He cannot control what we choose to do, how can inept bureaucrats in Olympia hope to do so?

TRUE urban planning would account for human choice and behavior and not be based on idealistic and starry-eyed politicans and activists with no knowledge of the real world.

Can We Afford "Smart Growth?"

A new UW study of Seattle housing prices says "No":

Between 1989 and 2006, the median inflation-adjusted price of a Seattle house rose from $221,000 to $447,800. Fully $200,000 of that increase was the result of land-use regulations, says Theo Eicher — twice the financial impact that regulation has had on other major U.S. cities.

What land-use regulations you say?

A key regulation is the state's Growth Management Act, enacted in 1990 in response to widespread public concern that sprawl could destroy the area's unique character. To preserve it, the act promoted restrictions on where housing can be built. The result is artificial density that has driven up home prices by limiting supply, Eicher says.

And who is it that pushes for these onerous regulations?

According to the Wharton study, cities such as Seattle that have high median incomes, high home prices and a large percentage of college-educated workers tend to have the most land-use regulations.

Sjoblom says that makes sense: "People with higher incomes want the kind of amenities that regulation provides," he says. "If you're a homeowner and growth controls are imposed and housing prices shoot up, you're grandfathered because you own the place. In theory people will say it's [rising prices] a bad thing, but in practice it's not hurting them."

[...]

In the final analysis, Eicher believes Seattle's regulatory climate exists because its residents want it. "My sense is land-use restrictions are imposed to generate socially desirable outcomes," he says. "We all love parks and green spaces. But we must also be informed about the costs. It's very easy to vote for a park if you think the cost is free."

Ah, now I see. The same old unholy alliance of left-wing no-growthers and selfish NIMBYists.

Pullman suffers from the same sort of problem as Seattle does to a lesser extent: artificially high home prices created by regulations created by snobby eltitists. For example, the PARDners say they want affordable housing while at the same time pressing for even more restrictive land use regulations. And let's not forget Cheryl Morgan and the League of Women Voters who also work to do everything they can to make development more difficult in Pullman.