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.

Quote of the Day II

The existence of private property rights and the ability to do things with your land as you see fit is often not fully appreciated. The United States of America would not be the county it is without these rights. John Adams, one of the founding fathers of our country, said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." (I bet John Adams told some really good I-remember-when stories.)

Lots of people want to tell you what you can do with property they do not own. The challenge is to allow development of private property in ways that provide profit to the landowner and facility to the community. It is often difficult to find the middle ground, and it is never possible to make everyone completely happy. If the community is not alert, small groups of vocal and active people can be very obstructive and do great harm to the future of the community.

- Steve Busch, "The ever-changing face of the Palouse," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, May 28, 2008

Moscowans should be glad that Steve and other individuals with common sense founded the Greater Moscow Alliance and saved the city from the clutches of those "small groups of vocal and active people."

Quote of the Day

[University of Idaho biology graduate student Chris Looney] added the rush to have the [giant Palouse earth]worm listed as an endangered species was brought on by fear of urban sprawl striking the Palouse.

If groups like the Palouse Prairie Foundation and other groups would have used less aggressive tactics, especially in light of slow growth trends, they may have been able to curry more support from farmers, he added.

- "One percent left: Grad students seek to save Palouse prairie remnants," Whitman County Gazette, May 1, 2008

Looney was part of cross-discipline study of the biological and sociological value of the Palouse Prairie funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation. The results of the study were presented to the Whitman County commissioners last Monday.

At least the truth about the giant Palouse earthworm has come out, and as usual, it has nothing to with science.

Snobler's List

Liberal Moscow gadfly Vera White took a gratuitous swipe at Whitman County in her column in the Daily News last Friday:

A recent posting on V2020 caught the INKster's eye, so she Googled the mentioned Web site to check it out. Earlier this month, The Progressive Farmer magazine released a list of the "Best Places to Live in Rural America." Each year, the rankings name the top-10 rural counties and profile each in the magazine. This year, Kent County, Md., was awarded top honors.

The magazine also listed the top 500 rural counties by region, and the INKster was pleased to learn some of the surrounding counties made the top 100 list in the Western Region.

Nez Perce County ranked No. 11 in Idaho, with Kootenai County No. 23 and Latah County coming in at No. 55. Asotin County in Washington ranked No. 70, but as the V2020 poster noted, "neither Whitman nor Spokane counties cracked the top 100."

As those chamber of commerce types continue to note, "things are lookin' good in the Valley."

So just what is a "Progressive Farmer" you may ask? (as well as why, since "Crime" is a ranking factor, did Latah County with a murder rate last year greater than most large U.S. cities rank as #55, but I digress.)

I read what the magazine had to say about its top rated place to live, Kent County, MD:

By all reasoning, Kent County should be covered with homes, strip malls and "farmettes." But it's not. Not anywhere close. [And Kootenai County is #23 by this standard? Go figure. - tf]

Instead, Kent County is a rare holdout in the sprawl and development in this country that clearly is out of control. Kent County maintains a culture of farming, wildlife, and small towns and villages that are relatively untouched.

For a county to be in our Best Places list, we hold them to the usual standards—good schools, health care, safety and other desirable qualities. But what makes Kent County stand out is its residents' resolve to maintain a solid rural heritage. At the foundation of that effort is farmland preservation, something that started decades ago with foresight, cooperation and some far-sighted planning.

Then it became readily apparent to me. A "Progressive Farmer" must be a wealthy, well-educated escapee from some big city that lusts after open spaces and breathtaking views and is willing to deprive the locals of their progress and property rights in order to keep it. It's just the old elitist, drawbridge mentality.

I'm frankly very happy glad Whitman County didn't make such a snobby list.

Corridor 3-Fer, Part 2

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Pullman, Whitman County look to align zoning codes near airport

Pullman and Whitman County planning officials are working to create consistent rules for what's allowed on land surrounding the area's commercial airport.

Pullman Planning Director Pete Dickinson said the two entities are working to align county and city zoning codes as they pertain to land use and height restrictions around the Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport - restrictions that are intended to ensure safety for planes during takeoff and landing.

The airport was under the county's control until it was annexed into Pullman in the 1980s.

"Our goal is to have a seamless operation between the city and the county when it comes to airport use regulations," Dickinson said. "We need to be on the same page. That's our goal."

Airport Manager Robb Parish said the Federal Aviation Administration requires counties and municipalities to make "appropriate land-use decisions" regarding areas and projects that may impact the airport.

"It is all in the control of Whitman County and Pullman," he said. "I think it really starts with everyone agreeing to protect the airport, then making decisions that implement that."

Whitman County Planner Mark Bordsen said the discussion is driven by the Washington State Department of Transportation's aviation division, which has encouraged municipalities to update zoning codes around airport properties.

He said in addition to discrepancies with Pullman, the county's "archaic" code is in need of an update.

"As best I can tell, it's probably something the feds told the state to tell the county to adopt," he said. "It's a very poorly worded chapter in our zoning code."

Dickinson said the city's interest in the issue stems from the county's allowance of more development in unincorporated areas. City zoning code restricts homes, hospitals, churches and child-care centers - or other places where many people may congregate - from within one mile east or west of the airport runway due to potential noise concerns.

Dickinson said the idea is to restrict the uses entirely so area residents or business owners would not be able to rally together to challenge the airport noise.

"There's a certain expectation that has been created in the county's unincorporated area right now that if you wish to develop your property near the airport, you can," Dickinson said. "But when you allow for residences near the airport, they are going to be bothered by airport noise. You get enough residences, churches, or child-cares together ... it becomes a battle, which we don't want to engage in."

Bordsen has a different opinion. He said Pullman and Washington State University allow for structures to be built closer to the airport than the county would like.

Bordsen also disagrees with some aspects of the city's permitted height requirements in the area. He said the county was given the thumbs up by the FAA to allow structures to be constructed behind natural hills that themselves are in violation of height restrictions.

"The FAA doesn't care, because if the airplane is going to hit something, it's going to hit the highest object," he said.

Dickinson said FAA rules often are left to interpretation, noting the Palouse's topography can pose an issue to the FAA's general restriction on the height of objects, landscaping and structures within a roughly 14,000-foot radius of the airport runway.

Parish said he is grateful the county notifies him when construction applications are submitted for areas near the airport. He reviews them and replies to the county with objections or concerns.

For instance, Parish objected when a cell tower was proposed within a mile of the airport and directly under a flight path. The land use is being investigated by the FAA.

"We really try to be reasonable. I don't want to object to a development if it's reasonable and we think it will be compatible. Frankly, we are eager to see the area develop," he said.

Parish said he sympathizes with the city and county as they try to reach a compromise, and understands the county may be facing pressure to allow rural residents to develop their property while at the same time trying to maintain safe operation of the airport.

"They're trying to get a better understanding of what really works around the airport and what doesn't," he said. "Everybody's trying their best to work through these issues."

Bordsen said he hopes the city and county will be able to find a solution that allows for airport safety and compatible development.

"I'm hoping it's going to be easy, but I don't know," he said. "It's going to be a tough issue."

Finally, a Government Subsidy Jim Fisher Likes

You remember liberal-tarian Lewiston Tribune columnist Jim Fisher takes a dim view of the government building a water and sewer system:

If Hawkins were doing what other developers have done in paying the cost of its own development, county revenues from sales and property taxes on the new mall would begin flowing immediately into county coffers.

But in today's column, Fisher is filled with praise for Whitman County for spending $42,795 of the taxpayer's money to help purchase and operate a wood chipper that will "travel the county grinding the wood waste that otherwise might be burned" and encouraging towns to set up composting facilities. He contrasts this with "backwards" Asotin County, that still foolishly expects property owners to either pony up themselves for a chipper or *gasp* burn their brush.

My question is, what if Hakwins uses the wood chipper when they clear off their property to build?

The League of Anti-Wal-Mart Vipers

Last night, the streets of the Paradise Ridge subdivision in Pullman were filled with the laughter of hundreds of trick-or-treaters.

Many of those children, including my own, after consuming far too much candy, settled down to sleep in safe, clean, new affordable homes in that same housing development.

But if Cheryl Morgan had had her way, my house, and all the others up here, would still be the site of Steve Mader's wheat stubble.

I first had a hint of this latest League of Women Voters' moonbattery back in June at Dino Rossi's Washington Idea Bank event. Pullman LWV President Alice Schroeder's great "idea" was wouldn't it be nice if the Growth Management Act and Critical Area Ordinances applied all over Washington, not just the urban areas. The Growth Management Act and Critical Area Ordinances, as you may know, are the satanic spawn of Olympia Democrats that have urban King County residents saddled with nationally-ranked high home prices and traffic congestion, while rural King County residents fear to trim weeds on their own property.

Why in the hell would we need more discussion about development in Pullman? Haven't three years, three appeals, three days of public hearings, 150 plus stories and editorials in the Daily News, innumerable press conferences and press releases, petitions from people in Perth, Australia, position papers, booths at the Lentil Festival, and about a gazillion angry letters to the editor bashing Wal-Mart been enough? Is there anyone in Pullman who thinks PARD has not had more than ample opportunity to make their case, over and over and over again, ad nauseam? Isn't developing anything in Pullman in particular, and Washington State in general, hard enough already? I quote from a story in today's Daily Evergreen:

Affordable Housing Glenn Crellin [sic], director of the Washington Center for Real Estate Research at WSU, said buying a first home is out of reach for many Pullman residents who earn a median income of approximately $33,600.

Housing in Whitman County is one of the least affordable in Washington, even though housing prices in Pullman are about $90,000 less than the average $316,700 in Washington, Crellin told the city council.

Many factors contribute to the problem. Pullman’s high student population lowers the median income, while relatively well-paid university employees drive up the price of housing with their demand. Interest rates, which reached 40-year lows in 2005, are again on the rise. Although land is comparatively cheap in Pullman, there is a lack of property owners interested in developing their land.

From a development point of view, building a home in Pullman is more expensive than in other areas, said Steve White, president of Coeur d’Alene-based Copper Basin Construction. Issues such as tough soil quality, a limited construction season, a shortage of laborers and a lack of locally available building materials make construction in Pullman more expensive then elsewhere.

“There is no magic wand we can wave to reduce costs,” White said.

Although there is no easy solution to such a complex issue, there are numerous options available. Inclusionary zoning, freeing up more land for development, mixed zoning and townhouse developments all might be used to create more affordable housing.

Pullman organizations have also worked to combat the issues. Tammy Lewis of the Palouse Economic Development Council has organized forums to increase awareness of alternative development concepts, zoning and land use policy and to inform landowners of their developmental options.

The Community Action Center is another Pullman organization working to address Pullman’s need for affordable housing. Karl Cozad, executive director of the group, said the CAC is working on a project to provide 26 low-cost family housing units.

Addressing affordable housing needs and adopting a comprehensive downtown plan were among city goals adopted this year.

Let's get something out of the way. There is NO SUCH THING as a perfect development. SOMEONE will always be against it. SOMEONE will always be negatively affected in some way. That is the nature of progress. It is painful sometimes. It can be disruptive, chaotic even. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

This LWV proposal shows the hypocrisy of these latte liberals. Many of the LWV members are comfortably retired from the university, with no small children at home and mortgages long since paid off. On issues that do not affect them directly, such as foreign policy, immigration, abortion, health care, education, etc. they have no problem backing the socialistic, collectivist solutions that ease consciences during their coffee klatches. But, by God, if they are going to be personally inconvenienced by two seconds more of traffic, driving 5 feet further to find a parking spot, having their favorite view of a moose in the wheatfield blocked by ugly cookie cutter tract houses, or Heaven forbid, seeing more disgusting rednecks shopping here in town, then they become the biggest advocates of individual rights since Friedrich Hayek.

The (Chester County, PA) Daily Local News said it all in an editorial a few years ago.

If individuals can afford to buy up open space and keep it open, I say God bless 'em. The problem is that nobody is rich enough to preserve the "character" of a whole township, so the gentry wants to make decisions about other people's property, not just their own.

Of course, there is a role for public comment concerning development in a democracy. But that comment has to be proportional to the individual's involvement and the impact of the project upon the indvidual, not the minority veto the LWV envisions. In my mind, the rights of the landowner come first, followed by the greater good of the community. And the greater good sometimes means sucking it up and keeping your mouth shut. Your nice view of the sunset going to get blocked? Buy the land yourself then. Otherwise, keep your pie hole shut. You think a certain housing development is ugly? Fine. Don't live there. You don't like a certain store's "cheap Chinese crap?" Good for you. Don't shop there. My God, have we become such a nation of selfish whiners that we expect everything to go our way all the time, and when it doesn't, bitch all the way to city hall?

And make no mistake. The anti-Wal-Mart agenda is written all over this proposal. Last year's Pullman LWV Secretary was PARDner Marj Grunewald. Marj and her husband Bob testified at last year's public hearing they didn't want to "spend eternity at the ass-end of a Wal-Mart." This year's Pullman LWV Membership/Hospitality Chair is none other than our old friend Judy "The Trolley Conductor" Krueger.

I'm glad the Pullman City Council and Pullman Planning Commission will give this proposal the place it so richly deserves: the wastebasket.

From Monday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Group pushes for more input; Pullman League of Women Voters submits proposal that would require public meetings on all development projects

The Pullman League of Women Voters want residents to have more input in local development projects.

Organization President Alice Schroeder presented a proposed ordinance to the Pullman City Council last week that would require developers to host public meetings before submitting significant project applications.

The goal of the "Pre-land Development Application Community Meeting Ordinance" is to open the line of communication between developers and the public - an area Schroeder said city requirements lack.

"There are flaws communicating what is going to happen (with a project,)" Schroeder said. "We don't think that's good for the community or any of us citizens. The community should be involved in proposed development early."

The council did not discuss the proposal during its meeting last week. Schroeder also presented the Pullman Planning Commission with the idea Wednesday.

City Planner Pete Dickinson said he has not read the proposed ordinance in full. Discussions both internally and publicly will need to occur before anything is written into code. Similar proposals have been brought to the city in the past, but Dickinson said "to see a proposed ordinance with the language like (the Pullman League Of Women Voters draft) is uncommon."

The proposed ordinance is similar to ordinances in place in Spokane and Bellingham, Wash. It mandates that community meetings be scheduled prior to any development project applications are submitted, except that of single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes or manufactured homes on one lot. Amendments to the comprehensive plan and permits for signs also could be conducted without a meeting.

Residents living within 300 feet of the subject property would have to be notified of the meeting along with most city officials. A newspaper notice and sign installed on the property 30 days prior to the meeting also would be required. Developers would be required to submit an audio tape and written summary sheet of the meeting's proceedings and list of attendees to the city.

Schroeder said rumors and misinformation tend to circulate around the community regarding proposed developments, often resulting in heated public hearings, name calling and hurt feelings. If the public was able to weigh in on projects before the application process, the developer would likely deal with "more level headed people" and know the community's stance on the project before going through the lengthy application process.

Munir Daud, a Pullman-based architect, engineer and founder of Munir Daud and Associates, doesn't see it that way.

He said developers already have enough hoops to jump through to proceed with projects in Pullman. Environmental check lists, zone changes and reviews by the City Council and planning commission are challenging and time consuming. Each step, requires a meeting that provides the public a chance to voice their opinion.

"They have opportunities. You can go and say whatever you want ... If you're really concerned, you could write a letter. You don't have to add another (meeting,)" he said.

Dickinson said he has deferred the draft to City Attorney Laura McAloon for review.

Daud said adding another meeting into the mix could cause extended delays on some projects. Any alteration to a plan could add three to six months to a development.

"Every time you delay it, it's extremely costly," Daud said. "A six-month delay could kill the project."

Schroeder said she doesn't expect the process would delay projects, and developers wouldn't have to follow any of the public's suggestions. She noted a project may even benefit from resident input.

"It's a matter of a few hours to send (a meeting notification) out, put up a sign and have the meeting. I think in the long run, it's kind of an insurance policy for developers. I don't think it would delay at all. It's a courtesy," she said.

Schroeder used a 50-unit mixed use development - proposed for the intersection of Paradise and High streets earlier this year - as an example. The proposal, submitted by Paradise Downtown, LLC and H and R Development, LLC, was greatly opposed by the community because of potential effects to the Pioneer Hill neighborhood and area parking. H and R Development eventually withdrew its conditional use application, but Schroeder said both time and money could have been saved if the developers had met with the public before putting in an application.

"If they had talked to the community earlier, not only would it have saved effort and money ... they might well have come up with solutions," she said.

Planning Commission Chairman Stephen Garl said the commission and city staff recommend that developers talk to neighbors around a project site. The city also takes note of public comments, be it formally in a meeting, casually in conversation or by mail. Project applications also are public record, which can be accessed in the city planning office.

"We know that the public wants to be involved," he said. "The good developers - the 95 to 98 percent of them - are going to be talking to their neighbors and such anyway. This was to address the 2 to 5 percent."

Garl said he believes the proposed ordinance could invite opportunities to deviate from the city's comprehensive plan if the public is able to weigh in on each step of the process.

"Planning needs to be both long-range vision - which is the comprehensive plan - and its day-to-day implementation, which is the zoning ordinance. (The proposed ordinance) potentially brings in a piecemeal chopping up of each project, rather than setting the vision in the comprehensive plan and writing code that implements it," he said.

"If you start making every project revealable at a public meeting - for good or bad - what you're doing is you no longer are planning and keeping the big vision picture in front of you," Garl added. "If there is a change of the vision, it should be written in the comprehensive plan and zone code, rather than project by project."

Let's Go Fishin'!

The giant Palouse earthworm will not be listed as an endangered species. Hallelujah! This decision, on the heels of the Washington Department of Ecology's approval of the Hawkins water transfer approvals, puts this week off to a great start. From the the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Giant Palouse Earthworm as Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the giant Palouse earthworm (Driloleirus americanus) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We find that the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that listing the giant Palouse earthworm may be warranted. Therefore, we will not be initiating a status review in response to this petition. However, we encourage the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning this species.

"Area groups dig in for a fight"

I predicted this was coming a year ago. To quote from a letter in the Lewiston Tribune last year:

You farmers might just as well sell your property now, because you will be doing it later if they do indeed give the worm endangered status. You will no longer be allowed to continue your way of life on the land that you own.

Too bad Whitman County residents were scared into voting against I-933. If the giant Palouse earthworm gets endangered species status, "urban sprawl" will be the least of Aaron Flansburg's concerns. Hysteria over the worm and water will be used by the leftists to make sure another shovel of dirt for development is never turned on the Palouse again.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Friends of the Clearwater, Palouse Prairie Foundation among conservation groups threatening to sue for endangered species listing

Several Palouse-area conservation groups have filed a 60-day formal notice of intent to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in an attempt to have the giant Palouse earthworm listed as an endangered species.

The conservation groups, which include the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Clearwater and the Palouse Prairie Foundation, filed the notice after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to respond to a petition filed in August requesting the earthworm - Driloleirus americanus - be listed as an endangered species.

Steve Paulson, a board member of Friends of the Clearwater, said by not responding, the department violated a federal law that mandates a 90-day finding and a 12-month finding.

The 90-day finding determines whether the petitioner provided sufficient information to move forward with the petition, while the 12-month finding proposes to either list the species, not list it, or place it on the precluded candidate list, which acts as a waiting list.

Tom Buckley, external affairs representative for the Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office in Spokane Valley, Wash., said the petition had been received and is in the department's system.

"The work has been done and it is being reviewed," Buckley said.

Buckley said he did not know when the review would be complete.

Paulson said he does not blame the regional office in Spokane for the lack of action, but rather the policies of President George Bush.

"The regional office has been very interested but they have their hands tied by the federal government," Paulson said. "The Bush administration has put a de facto hold on adding endangered species to the list. They have the worst record for additions to lists."

Paulson said the current administration has only added 58 species to the list, while the Clinton administration added 522 species.

"This worm represents an opportunity to possibly help protect the native Palouse prairie," Paulson said.

Paulson said if the earthworm made it onto the endangered species list, the Idaho Department of Transportation would have to take the worms' welfare into consideration when planning and completing the remaining portion of U.S. Highway 95 from Thorn Creek Road to Moscow.

Paulson said a section of the highway located on Paradise Ridge travels directly through what may be prime real estate for the earthworm.

"They would have to consider whether they are endangering this worm," Paulson said.

IDT Senior Environmental Planner Zach Funkhouser said listing the earthworm likely would not result in the halting of construction.

Funkhouser said IDT would have to prepare a biological assessment that would describe the area and provide a statement of anticipated effects. The Fish and Wildlife Service would then evaluate the assessment and approve, deny or offer comments.

"Generally the outcome is you get some sort of approval to move forward," Funkhouser said. "More than likely they would just require additional steps."

IDT Project Manager Ken Helm said he does not expect any issues with construction to arise.

"I know that we really don't have too much concern about it," Helm said.

The giant Palouse earthworm is the largest and longest-lived earthworm on the continent and can reach a length of 3 feet. It has a pinkish-white color and is reported to have a flowery smell. It lives in permanent burrows as deep as 15 feet and has been reported to spit at attackers to escape predators.

The earthworm's only known habitat is the grassland of the Palouse in west-central Idaho and southeastern Washington, much of which has been destroyed by agricultural and development, invasive species and pesticides.

The earthworm was described as very abundant in 1897, but has not been sighted since May 2005. Before that, it had not been sighted since 1988.

Where in the World is Chuckie Sandiego?

Spanning the globe to bring you the constant variety of worthless comparisons of exotic foreign locales to Pullman… the thrill of erudite cosmopolitanism… and the agony of plebeian Wal-Marts… the human drama of preening intellectualism… this is Chuck Pezeshki's's Wide World of Socialism!


This week, globetrotting WSU professor Chuck "Mr. Civil Discourse" Pezeshki checks in from the island of Kauai in Hawaii for another illustration of his illusionary socialist zeitgeist. In a column in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News Chuck informs us that the friendly Hawaiians have no need for private beaches, so therefore we should do away with private ownership of farm and forest lands around here, and apparently, motorcycles and four-wheelers:

In our own little neck of the woods, we're running up against a lot of the same kinds of issues. Access across and to private land is big - from disputes on Moscow Mountain, to Potlatch Corp. selling passes for land access, to the recent closing of part of Sanders Beach on Lake Coeur d'Alene. People are flocking to our area to buy their own little part of paradise or ride their ATV on land someone else owns.

[...]

We're not as lucky here. With a few notable exceptions, we've set ourselves up under the screaming principles of "private property rights" or "we've always rode our dirt-bikes here," instead of accepting we all live here because it is a beautiful place...

Pezeshki mentions how expensive homes are Hawaii, without looking more deeply into why other than the old liberal saw of "real estate developers on one side and permanent residents on the other." I imagine the environmental and development regulations in Hawaii are pretty rigorous. That might have something to do with it.

I can hardly wait to see where Chuck visits next time! Perhaps a visit to the former East Germany or Poland might snap him out of his fantasy world of central government planning and no property rights...

"County adopts rural residential laws; Commissioner Largent casts lone dissenting vote, saying viewsheds and setbacks too restrictive"

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Whitman County residents will have more ways to use their land starting May 15.

County commissioners approved revisions to the county's rural residential laws by a 2-1 vote Monday. Commissioner Michael Largent cast the dissenting vote.

The new laws, which had been in the works for much of the last six years, set limits on where new structures can be built by regulating their distance from roads, elevation on buttes, where the structures are located in relation to a neighbor's property and the acreage necessary to build upon.

Despite those restrictions, the laws were intended to help the county grow. They replace a land-use policy that has been in place for more than 30 years and required a section of ground to remain unused for three years before it could be developed. The revised laws include no mandatory waiting period.

Largent said restrictions regarding required viewshed protection and mandatory setbacks do not align with his personal convictions concerning private property rights.

"That doesn't mean the other commissioners don't value property rights, though," he said.

Largent said Commissioners Greg Partch and Jerry Finch did not try to pressure him to vote for the new laws.

"Now that they are law I will support them," he said.

Partch said the commissioners wanted to preserve and bolster agriculture and maintain the natural beauty of the county while making way for rural residential development.

"I think we've accomplished that," Partch said. "I believe we'll look back at this in 20 years and know we did the right thing."

Partch said the public process was instrumental in the formation of the new laws and the refinement process. It was public input that originally started the revision to the county's comprehensive plan.

The planning commission sent its proposed land-use laws to the commissioners last summer. The proposed laws initially restricted the size, type, color and landscape of new structures built in the county, which caused an uproar among many rural residents. After several heated public comment sessions last fall, county officials nixed most of the sections that restricted personal property rights.

The county did hold onto proposed viewshed and butte-top building restrictions, which are designed to protect the natural aspects of the area. It also kept setbacks and buffer zones to protect agriculture and eliminate conflicts between farmers and rural landowners.

In December, county Prosecutor Denis Tracy raised questions about the constitutionality of the proposed laws. He worked with the planning department and the commissioners to resolve the potential problems.

The county established aquifer-recharge zones around buttes to preserve them from development and protect areas that potentially recharge the region's aquifer systems.

"Whitman County hasn't grown for years," Partch said. "Now hopefully we can have some forward movement."

QUICKREAD

WHAT HAPPENED: Whitman County commissioners voted 2-1 to approve the county's revised rural residential laws.

WHAT IT MEANS: The new laws open up development in the county by eliminating the three-year waiting period the county previously had in place.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT: The laws go into effect May 15.

WHY YOU SHOULD CARE: The new laws make way for development in the county.

I congratulate the commissioners on their scientific acumen on where the aquifer recharges. It was reported elsewhere in the Daily News today that "it is unknown where the water enters the aquifer."

"I believe we'll look back at this in 20 years and know we did the right thing." We'll see about that. I sure hope he's right. I'll be happier than anyone. But you can't fool Mother Nature and you don't trick the immutable laws of economics.

BREAKING NEWS: County Commissioners Approve Rural Residential Zoning Ordinance

By a vote of 2-1, Whitman County Commissioners have approved the changes to the county's rural residential zoning ordinance.

My sincerest congratulations to Commissioner Michael Largent for voting against the changes. He has lived up to the promises he made during last year's election to uphold free enterprise and property rights.

The ordinance goes into effect May 15. All that's left now is the inevitable (and expensive) lawsuit over the unconstitutionality of restricting hilltop development.

Thanks to Voters, Arizona Has True Private Property Rights

Voters in Arizona last year had the chance to vote on securing private property rights like voters in Washington and Idaho did. However, Arizonans did not cave in to the scare tactics from the environmentalists, NIMBYers, and bureaucrats and are now reaping the rewards. No wonder Washington politicians, both Democratic and Republican, were so against I-933. Power over private property in the hands of the owners? Sacrilege!

Fron Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic:

Score one for that most beleaguered of men, the one whose land the city has plans for.

The Phoenix City Council went into full retreat this week, repealing the historic designation it had slapped on a swath of land in central Phoenix. Not only did city leaders back away from their earlier decision to block a guy from doing what he's legally entitled to do with his own land, they declared their fallback an emergency.

"I still think it was the right thing to have a historic overlay on it," a slightly grumpy Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon told me. "But it (the repeal) was on the advice of attorneys. I've got a fiduciary duty to the citizens not to risk $40 million."

Turns out it can be downright pricey to trample people's rights. Has been ever since November when 65 percent of voters ushered in Proposition 207, the Private Property Rights Protection Act.

Not a moment too soon, as it turns out, for Scott Haskins and the other landowners along the north side of McDowell Road, between 11th and 15th avenues.

A year ago, Haskins bought the Palmcroft Apartments, two blocks of ratty apartments. They were built in 1943 as war housing, and I imagine they were decent in their day. You know, along about the time of the Eisenhower administration.

In more recent decades, they have become what that area's police commander tactfully described to me as "the cancer complex of the neighborhood." So along comes Haskins, who buys the place and cleans it out, earning the undying gratitude of many in neighboring Palmcroft.

Haskins, an investor from Santa Barbara, Calif., did his homework before plunking down $5.4 million for the land, making sure the city's rules would allow him to tear down the apartments and put in luxury condos. They did.

What he didn't count on was G.G. George, a self-appointed activist who has the ear of the area's councilman, Doug Lingner. When George speaks, Lingner listens. Which is how Haskins' property came to be declared historic.

Normally, such matters are initiated by the city's Historic Preservation Commission but only after two-thirds of the affected property owners approve. Lingner got his pals on the City Council to bypass such niceties. In November, they declared the area historic over the objections of every landowner affected.

Given the historic status, Haskins was blocked from demolishing the apartments for a year and then would have been forced to jump through an array of city hoops, giving the city control over what he could build and how it could look.

So he filed a $40 million lawsuit, claiming that under Proposition 207, the city was lowering the value of his land. City pols disagreed but hotfooted it on Wednesday to undo their handiwork.

Gordon was almost wistful on Thursday when he talked about the Palmcroft Apartments. He suspects Haskins is out to make a fast buck, not a place of distinction. "Those apartments could have been beautiful restored," Gordon said.

Those apartments weren't beautiful in their best day and to be kind, that day ended before I was born. But if there is a gem there, hidden by generations of grime and neglect, why wait until Haskins comes onto the scene to look for it?

This isn't about a city saving history. It's about a city controlling property. Which wouldn't be so bad, except that it isn't their property. It belongs to Haskins. "They wanted to play Socialist Republic of Phoenix and got their hands slapped, hard," he told me.

His plan shows condos up to four stories, as the zoning allows, condos he promises will be an architectural point of pride. I hope so. He's already made his mark on this place once. He's the guy who took on city hall shenanigans and won.

It almost seems - dare I say it? - historic.

HT: Dale Courtney

"Public hearing: Ag zone foes voice objections"

From the April 19 edition of the Whitman County Gazette:

Over a dozen citizens packed the auditorium at the public Service Building Tuesday night to voice their support or opposition to changes to the county's proposed rural residential ordinance.

Many in the crowd though the low attendance was due to spring planting season.

"This is a very poor time to have this meeting," said Colfax farmer Tom Barlass. "Our crops are much more important than anything else right now."

Spokane resident Robert Zorb, who owns farm land in the county, also chastised the timing.

"You picked the worst time of the year and the worst time of the day to the people you;re affecting in here," said Zorb.

If it's really that important, you would think more people would make an effort to come," Commissioner Greg Partch said after the hearing.

Barlass, who spoke at the December public hearing, again asked commissioners about weed control in buffer zones.

"I don't want a 200-foot set aside with thistles blowing over to my side," he said.

Barlass also asked about the Avista power poles.

"You can't stop them from building on top of a hill, but you can stop me?" he asked.

Pullman City Supervisor John Sherman spoke on behalf of the city, reiterating its desire to have a one-mile buffer from development around Pullman.

Sherman said Pullman housing has become unaffordable for some, and opening development in the county would be helpful, but wanted to make sure the city has room to expand.

"I asked for it in May, and again in December," said Sherman. "Leaving that room for the city to grow would increase the tax base for both the city and the county."

Zorb said commissioners "had their car in reverse."

"You're not creating anything," he said. "You're below zero growth." [In two other stories in the Gazette, it was reported that first quarter 2007 building permits hit a five-year low and that the county was facing a million dollar budget deficit- tf]

"Read your history," said Zorb. 'The first thing a government does before going to communism is to take away your land rights."

Lucille Linden spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters. She voiced the league's support of the ordinance, and asked that it not be altered for one year if it is implemented to gauge any impacts it may have.

Elberton resident Pete Lazzarini questioned how much public input commissioners factored in the code.

"Your time would be well spent finding out what the people who voted you in want," said Lazzarini.

"I know you want to get this off the table, but let's take our time and get it absolutely right."

LaCrosse farmer Tedd Nealey also voiced support for the ordinance's revisions.

"What do we want to leave our kids and grandkids," he asked. "I want to keep my farm."

Nealey urged commissioners to implement the revisions as soon as possible.

"It's time we get this document in place and move on," he said. "Once we start there's no going back."

The planning department will receive written comments until 5 p.m. next Tuesday. Commissioners have promised a decision for April 30 during their regular board meeting.

I hope to have some more documentation on the whole "aquifer recharge zone" thing soon. When I said the science was indefensible, I meant that as this point, the "aquifer recharge zone" on buttes is still just a theory, that won't be proven until at least December. The county commissioners are staking our whole future on a science experiment.

“Contentious Whitman Co. rural residential laws near completion”

From today’s Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Many residents still concerned, but county says issues of constitutionality have been addressed

Whitman County's proposed rural residential laws and revisions to its comprehensive plan could be signed into law by the end of the month.

A Tuesday night public hearing marked the last planned comment period before Whitman County commissioners enact the proposed laws, which is tentatively scheduled for their April 30 meeting.

The proposed land-use laws would open up the county's rural areas to development and eliminate the three-year waiting period that previously regulated development. The laws have caused a stir in the county since the revisions were first suggested by the county's planning commission several years ago.

The proposed laws initially contained restrictions on development on hilltops, the color a house could be painted and other rules that were greeted by public outcry at previous meetings.

The commissioners and county planning department retained the restrictions on hilltop construction, but nixed limitations on paint color and landscaping.

Restrictions on areas that could be developed sparked some concern over their constitutional legality by residents and county staff, including Prosecutor Denis Tracy.

Before meeting with the planning department, Tracy questioned if restrictions on hilltop building would be constitutionally defensible. Tracy said Tuesday that those issues have been resolved, partially by incorporating aquifer recharge zones onto the area's 15 buttes.

County planning staff previously said hilltop building restrictions were important for protecting the area's agricultural industry and for maintaining its image of wide-open, rolling hills.

Under the final revisions, people can build on a hill but there are restrictions on the exposure of the home.

Tuesday night's meeting was sparsely attended compared to past public hearings, but a wide array of comments were heard.

Several people spoke in favor of the new laws, saying they will protect agricultural land and allow for development.

Others questioned whether stipulations in the new laws would keep them from rebuilding their homes if they burned down, since the laws have changed since their houses were built. Tracy said the county does not want to restrict people from rebuilding their homes, and that he and the planning department will review the laws to make sure the wording is correct.

A few people commented that the timing of the hearing prohibited many landowners, especially farmers, from attending the 6 p.m. meeting.

"You're never going to find a time that works for everyone," Commissioner Michael Largent said. "This meeting was designed so people could come."

- Public comment will be accepted until April 27. Comments can be mailed to the county commissioners or submitted in person at the Whitman County Courthouse. The proposed laws can be viewed on the county Web site at www.whitmancounty.org. The revisions are at the bottom on the home page under quick links.

QUICKREAD

WHAT HAPPENED: Whitman County residents voiced their opinions on the county's revised comprehensive plan and proposed rural residential laws.

WHAT IT MEANS: The commissioners and county staff will take the public's suggestions and consider them in an effort to refine the proposed laws.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT: County commissioners plan to review and sign the proposed laws April 30.

WHY YOU SHOULD CARE: The new laws will form the foundation for development in the county for the next several decades.

So that explains how the constitutionality problems “disppeared.” Incredibly, the commissioners are playing the “water card,” just as Moscow has done with the Hawkins development in the corridor. I understand the county even used some studies done, by that’s right, Mark Solomon, to justify their decision. I’m going to get post links to these various studies as soon as I can. The science for using the buttes as “aquifer recharge zones,” from what I understand, is indefensible.

Even worse, those 15 buttes are not owned by the county, but by private landowners. There is no plan on how to compensate these owners of the buttes for the loss of use of their land Many believe this will result in either lawsuits or a change of commissioners in the next election. As a minimum, the commissionrs have to delay adoption of butte protection until they can determine ways to work with the landowners.

The commissioners have made a deal with the devil. The price will be high. This could come back to haunt the county in future legal wrangling with Moscow over the corridor. It may land the county in court trying to defend the constitutionality of this planning disaster. And, as mentioned earlier, it certainly may cost some commissioners their jobs next year.

But apparently the die has been cast. The commissioners' “damn the torpedos” approach has thus far evaded all resistance. And we in Whitman County will have to live in the shadow of this new zoning ordinance for years to come, as we have done with the previous one.

God help us.

Public Workshop and Hearing on the Proposed Changes to Rural Residential Rules in the Agricultural District

The Whitman County Public Works department is offering an informational workshop on the proposed changes to rural residential code requirements in the Agricultural District tomorrow, April 17, 2007, from 2-5 PM at the Public Service Building in Colfax, Room A, 2nd floor. This be followed at 6-8 PM by a public hearing on Proposed Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances in the Public Service Building Auditorium on the 1st floor.

Here are the Rural Residential Housing proposed revisions.

According to the April 5 edition of the Whitman County Gazette, County Prosecutor Denis Tracy said there are no "obvious constitutional flaws" to the current draft, even though the viewshed requirements are still part of the draft. That's a bit strange, considering Tracy recently found that the viewshed section of the code fell short in the balancing test required for constitutionality and said that, "While those are attractive, good for tourism and make this a desirable place to live and work, It could be argued that you are creating a giant theme park called the Palouse at the expense of private landowners." Tracy did state he still had reservations that he would share with the commissioners.

So do I. I think the commissioners are making a big mistake in pushing for these changes that could lead to constitutional challenges in court. But, it appears that the Rural Residential Zoning changes will pass with both viewshed and hilltop development restrictions, no matter what anyone thinks.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out next year, when two of the commissioners are up for reelection.

A Tale of Two Stories

It's funny how two different newspapers can interpret the same event in two completely different ways.

For example, there was this story in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Completion of rural residential laws in sight; County schedules one more public hearing on proposed revisions

Proposed revisions to Whitman County's rural residential laws could become official after one more public hearing.

Public Works Director Mark Storey said Monday that county staff will meet Wednesday to discuss final changes to the proposed laws before sending them to the county commissioners.

If county commissioners approve of the changes, all that remains is a final public hearing on the matter. The hearing has been scheduled for 6 p.m. April 17 at the Public Service Building in Colfax.

Storey said the planning staff and Whitman County Prosecutor Denis Tracy have met a few times over the last three months to discuss changes to the proposed laws to make them more defensible and clear.

Questions about defensibility have haunted the proposed laws since their inception in planning commission meetings several years ago. Commissioner Greg Partch said the goal of the laws is to protect agriculture and open up the county to development, and that finding a way to balance the two takes new ideas.

Some of those new ideas spurred the commissioners to pay $5,000 to a Spokane legal firm last summer to review an early draft of the proposed laws.

Many county residents protested the expenditure, and the commissioners and county staff decided to table the proposed laws late last year after questions about defensibility and clarity arose at public hearings and county workshops.

In December, Tracy wrote a letter to the commissioners and staff outlining his concerns that aspects of the laws including viewsheds and butte protection would be hard to defend because they were relatively new ideas.

Storey and County Planner Mark Bordsen said issues over viewsheds, butte protection, and how the proposed laws coincide with the county's comprehensive plan have been addressed. Avenues for residents to appeal the new laws have been refined, and the document is more defensible.

The commissioners and planning commission have maintained that they want to protect the viewsheds of the county and its buttes and high places. With revisions, Storey said the county has established reasons why those areas should be protected.

Commissioner Jerry Finch said the Palouse is known for its rolling hills and open spaces, and the county wants to protect those assets. Commissioners and staff believe hilltop homes could damage the reputation of the county's emerging scenic byway and interfere with aquifer recharge zones.

Storey said the proposed laws in fact open up space to build by defining the areas needed to protect the buttes and recharge zones. He used a map of Kamiak Butte to demonstrate new areas that could potentially be opened for development. Past versions of the laws restricted development near the buttes. Under the current draft, areas far enough away from county roads and outside of suggested aquifer recharge zones would be open for development.

Other changes include the possibility for families to build additional dwellings on a home site.

"I think we have a fine new ordinance that ... most importantly, protects agriculture and opens up more housing options in the county," Finch said. "I think if people read the revised ordinance critically and try to put aside their emotions they will see we made a great effort to open the county and give them more options."

If one read just Ryan Bentley's story, one would think the rural residential zoning ordinance was on the verge of being passed. Actually, that is not exactly true, as evidenced by Whitman County Gazette publisher Gordon Forgey's editorial from last Thursday's edition:

Miles to Go

After years of debate and hearings, the final draft of the county's agriculture zoning codes was due at the first of the month.

That deadline has been pushed back because the wrangling continues.

Now, Denis Tracy, county prosecutor, says portions of the final proposal are flawed and may, in fact, be unconstitutional.

It is back to the drawing board, specifically in the area of "viewshed" requirements. This is the idea that the beauty of the Palouse should not be marred by the appearance of houses on hill tops. The inclusion of the concept of viewsheds in the proposed zoning ordinance and its ramifications has been a sticking point in the development of the plan.

The plan has made it this far after being run through the gauntlets of land owners and environmentalists.

As each group claims, the plan will impact all the county for years to come. As such, it is important that it be right, rather than rushed.

The final plan may still be months away. More workshops and more hearings will be held. The good news is that about the only group not trying to shape the plan is the Moscow city council and its mayor, but, of course, their hands are full stopping development in eastern Whitman County.

This thing is far from done.

The Theme Park Mentality

I have blogged often lately about the "drawbridger" mentality that infects the Palouse. That's when people move in from somewhere else, discover that the Palouse is a paradise, and then want to "pull up the drawbridge" so no one else can move in and ruin it for them.

I'm beginning to notice another pernicious attitude around here as well: the "Theme Park" mentality. It was on display in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Moscow must lead with vision

I am pleased to find, despite criticisms and political pressures, Mayor Nancy Chaney is thinking and defending the best interests of Moscow residents. The building of big-box stores just across the border will place many of the costs on Moscow residents rather than Whitman County.

Whose water source will be potentially decreased? Whose police and fire departments will respond to situations that may arise, especially shoplifting and theft? If Moscow residents bear the costs maybe our political representatives should consider annexing land across the state line. It has been done elsewhere and should be legal.

A more long-term issue is to consider how and where development should take place. I recall arriving for an interview more than 20 years ago, admiring the countryside on the ride into town from the Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport until I saw the Palouse Empire Mall and the continual strip development thinking, "Oh, no, they have moved the ugly New Jersey strip landscape to rural Idaho."

Fortunately, later I saw downtown Moscow, the essence of what, only now, much of American development is now trying to "get-back-to" via trendy terms such as "New Urbanism." The use of strip malls, linear development and big-box stores has created by contrast the new term "junkscape."

A question remains, which trend do we want to promote? Is it a question of development or not? All of the stores and businesses in our current "junkscape" could have been accommodated in a much better thought out vision and development plan.

We need, as residents, to think of what those alternatives might be rather than merely extending our Moscow "junkscape" across the state line and into Pullman. Can we not lead with our own visions, rather than borrowing from New Jersey and elsewhere?

Gundars Rudzitis, Moscow

See, Rudzitis came to Moscow with a preconceived notion of what "rural Idaho" should look like. He was obviously devastated to see that there was actually 20th century commerce here in the form of a mall. Much as on a trip to Disney World, you expect to be "wowed." You want to be taken away to imaginary places and faraway lands. You don't shell out thousands to see something you could see on the next block over back home. The problem is, PULLMAN AND WHITMAN COUNTY IS NOT A THEME PARK!!!!!! We are trying to raise our families as best we can and maybe pass on to our kids a little more than we had. We are not animatronic puppets built for the amusement of outsiders. This is not "Frontierland" or "Main Street USA." If people in New Jersey have strip malls and big-box stores, why shouldn't we? Are our needs so different? The "junkscapes" Rudzitis describes have been built because that is how Americans prefer to shop. His "junkscape" is actually a "moneyscape." The lack of such a "junkscape" costs Pullman $100 million in retail sales every single year.

Rudzitis, of course, is free to prefer Godsey's General Store to the Palouse Mall. Where he and the other "smart growthers" go wrong is the desire to force their vision on everyone else through governmental means such as Nancy Chaney and her City Clowncil and Rudzitis' proposed annexaton that would result in the trampling of private propery rights.

There was a similar theme raised in last Thursday's issue of the Whitman County Gazette. The front page story covered the unfolding disaster that is the rural residential zoning ordinance. The County Commissioners have bought a real pig in a poke. The whole thing is going to have to be scrapped because it is fraught with legal peril for the county, and frankly, is unconstitutional.

One excerpt from the story is particularly illuminating:

[Whitman County Prosecutor Denis] Tracy said the viewshed section of the code fell short in the balancing test, as it aims to preserve the rolling hills and rural character of the county.

"While those are attractive, good for tourism and make this a desirable place to live and work," said Tracy. "It could be argued that you are creating a giant theme park called the Palouse at the expense of private landowners."

Thank goodness we have people like Denis Tracy to stop the madness.

"Affordable homes remain elusive"

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Pullman forum outlines problems, alternatives as families search for choices

Eunice Stime tries to find people the perfect home, but the task is becoming harder in today's housing market.

"There's no 'great deal' anymore. There are families that will live just about anywhere they can afford," said Stime, a Realtor for Beasley Realty in Pullman.

Stime recently sold a home to a married couple with a child. The family had been house-hunting for several years and finally settled on a one-bedroom in Colfax. The young couple's struggles are not new.

"People have to settle, and they're discouraged to buy," she said of many house-hunters.

Stime was one of more than 100 people who attended the Affordable Housing for Whitman County forum at the Gladish Community Center in Pullman on Thursday. The event was sponsored by the Palouse Economic Development Council and the Community Action Center. Attendants of the forum included Whitman County staff, representatives from cities across the region, developers, real estate agents, landlords and homeowners.

Three breakout groups provided people a chance to learn more about specific issues such as land development, alternative development concepts and zoning and land use.

Chris Venne, development finance director for Community Frameworks, a Spokane-based organization that provides affordable housing solutions for the Pacific Northwest, said there is no easy way to correct the affordable housing problem. One issue driving concerns is that housing prices are increasing while income levels are not increasing at the same rate, a phenomena Venne described as "the gap."

"The gap is growing. Over the last couple years, the gap is getting worse," he said.

In Whitman County, home values are increasing by about 45 percent, while incomes have upped by a little more than 10 percent.

The problem affects economic development, Venne said, providing anecdotes to describe the national affordable housing issue.

Moderate-level workers around the Inland Northwest are affected, he said. Firefighters and other emergency workers are moving into cheaper, more suburban areas that are farther away from their service area, adding to response times. Teachers cannot afford to purchase homes and often turn down jobs because of the lack of available affordable housing, which causes school administrators to hire third- and fourth-choice teaching candidates. Businesses are finding it difficult to recruit workers because employees can't afford to buy a home and settle down.

"People in the workforce are finding it harder and harder to find homes," he said. "What does that mean for the quality of life in that community? These examples are happening all over this region. It may not ever happen here ... but there are things that may happen if you let your housing problems go too far."

Glen Crellin, director of the Washington State University Center for Real Estate Research, put things in perspective. The average home along the West coast averages about $500,000, he said.

"That certainly makes communities like Pullman look down right affordable," he said. "But, as we know, the devil is in the details."

In Washington - the state with the highest minimum wage in the country - would-be first-time home buyers are increasingly unable to afford a house.

"If we can't get people into their first home, it's going to be harder for them to move up the ladder (of home ownership) in the future," Crellin said. "We need to have reasonable opportunities for first-time home buyers to participate in the realty market. The problem is critical in communities like this."

Presenters, such as Jim Soules, a Seattle developer with the Cottage Company LLC, provided housing alternatives such as small clusters of homes on a large lot. The homes can be quality built for less money, which is passed along to buyers. As those homes become more popular, though, values increase.

Self-help housing options, such as Habitat for Humanity and other similar programs, help people with low to moderate-level incomes pay for parts of their homes through sweat equity, meaning they help in its construction. Land trust options also allow moderate-income level families to purchase homes, while not owning the land. Modular and manufactured homes also are options.

Venne urges potential home owners and developers to be creative and local political leaders to take an interest. Only then will change occur and affordable housing become more available.

"Where there's a political will, it will happen," he said. "The problem is that there's no easy solution. There's no silver bullet."

It's pretty disppointing if these were the main issues that were discussed. If so, this sounded like a forum on the infamous "living wage" more than "affordable housing."

What does the minimum wage have to do with anything? Even in Washington, no one making minumum wage is going to be able to afford a house.

There's no mystery to affordable housing in Pullman. It's all about simple supply and demand. Ed Schweitzer has been saying this for years and years and still no one gets it. Even though we are surrounded by over 2000 square miles of farmland, restrictive zoning laws have made land to build on scarce and unavailable in Pullman and Whitman County. When land is expensive, so is the cost of housing. For example, remember the development across from the high school that is destroying "the charming little valley?" Some of the tiny lots there are going for $80,000.

I'm surprised the guy from the Washington State University Center for Real Estate Research didn't mention their study that showed how the Growth Management Act has increased home prices in Washington. Whitman County has opted out of the GMA, but our rural residential zoning ordinance in many ways is just as onerous. Environmental regulations ALWAYS work against affordability. After all, you can't protect your "viewshed" AND provide affordable housing to young families. But that suits most of our local drawbridgers just fine. They don't want any new people moving in anyway. They've got theirs already.

According to the 3rd Quarter 2006 Housing Market Snapshot from the Washington Center for Real Estate Research, Whitman County is FIFTH WORST in the state for First Time Buyer Affordability.

There's also a flip side to supply and demand. There is a supply of people in Pullman willing to pay $300,000 plus for a home. As long as there is, developers will keep building $300,000 plus homes. But as usual, the free market will provide the solution. Once the high end demand has been met, developers will then begin to address lower-end housing.

But as long as we have restrictive, anti-growth zoning in place, Pullman and Whitman County are never going to be good places for young people just starting out to live. We only educate and house them for four years and then export all that brain power somewhere else. Is that what we want?

As Always, PARD know best. NOT!

Interestingly enough, a second letter to the editor in as many days has been published by the Daily News. Today's letter seems to speak for the PARD organization. This letter shows some of the hypocritical nature of PARD.

For two years, the Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development and others have been calling for a thorough traffic study of Bishop Boulevard. It is one of the bases of our lawsuit against Wal-Mart and Pullman. Imagine our surprise to read that Pullman City Council was authorizing $45,000 for such a study. PARD's traffic expert pointed out 108 flaws with the earlier work, including many issues with the southeast end of Bishop - the central part of this new study.

Had the city used common sense two years ago, the study of Bishop, all its major arterial connections, and downtown, could have been paid for by Wal-Mart as a reasonable part of a full traffic and fiscal impact study mandated by city code. Now they are adding $45,000 in taxpayer money on top of the $27,000 spent in litigation with PARD that would have been unnecessary if this work was done at the beginning of the development process.

PARD has long argued the reasonable development of Bishop needs to be consistent with the Pullman Comprehensive Plan. We have supported most recent and planned developments on Bishop, including the Fireside Grille, Crimson and Grey, the expansion of Zeppoz, and the planned new site for Moscow-Pullman Building Supply. Other developments, such as the strip mall on southeast Bishop, are extremely ill-advised. It is built on a flood plain at the base of road banked in the wrong direction and will impair an already impacted area near the turn of a steep descent.

Our main objection, of course, is to the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter, which is of a scale and on a site that will create huge traffic problems. It is a little late for this $45,000 study to help rectify this issue; a lot of horses are already out of the barn. If done competently, there can be little doubt that without Wal-Mart, Bishop Boulevard will be a useable, attractive new shopping area.

Deirdre Sommerlad, Pullman

PARD claims they are not a one-hit wonder. They are here for Pullman in the long haul. It is not a group only focused on Wal-Mart, however, this letter seems to point out otherwise.

They now blame the city for the $27,000+ dollars spent in litigation. They now claim that if the city had made WalMart do a traffic impact study, PARD would not have sued to stop WalMart. That claim is laughable. No matter what, PARD would have sued to stop WalMart. The cost of the litigation is on the shoulders of PARD.

Once again PARD makes claims that they are okay with the Zeppoz expansion. Wow, how bold. Crimson and Grey and Fireside were okay in their book. However, by Crimson and Grey building their new location, they left a large store front empty in the Wheatland shopping center.

What about Pullman Building Supply? A huge location that rivals WalMart, but that, too, is okay with PARD. Once again, this proves, PARD is an anti-WalMart group. They can claim otherwise, but look at their ACTIONS for the proof. They use lipservice and make claims on their website about supporting certain developments. That is not being involved like they would have people believe.

Lastly, the idea that they are against the strip mall, that is being built across from Crimson and Grey is also laughable! They were so against it they didn't raise a stink. They didn't have a petition drive. They didn't sue to stop it. They didn't commission major studies. They used lipservice to make themselves appear to be a group that fights for or against all development in Pullman, when in reality their ACTIONS show they are anti-WalMart.

Let's stop playing these games. Be honest about your intentions. The main objection is the scale and location? That may be your main objection today. But what about yesterday? What about tomorrow? Your kitchen sink arguments is so old and tiresome I don't even want to battle them any more.

Let's get to the real issue here. A group of people are attempting to stop someone from exercising their rights. Property that is owned by and zoned for this kind of development is being delayed by PARD who has no ownership of said land. If PARD wants a say, they should pony up all the money they have used to commission studies and start lawsuits towards buying the land in question. Then PARD could do as they wish. But, as we know, most Liberals love to do "what is best" with every one of your dollars -- not theirs.

PARD, please stop this. You are weakening property rights. You are weakening the Pullman tax base. With these continued delays the state EPA is putting more restrictions on development through regulation. There is no doubt that once WalMart is built and the other businesses that will come to Pullman because of WalMart will have a harder time building because of the more harsh environmental regulations.

Each and every day PARD is stomping on property rights and is causing harm to Pullman's future.