"Ag zone changes yet to show in building permits"

I hate so say I told you so, but after comments made by Whitman County Commissioner Greg Partch that developers were "lined up waiting on the passage of the rural residential zoning ordinance," somebody has to call BS.

From yesterday's Whitman County Gazette:

When county commissioners approved changes to the county's rural residential zoning ordinance April 30, they hailed the revisions for opening up rural Whitman County to new housing developments while protecting the area's unique scenery.

While restrictions on building in viewsheds and buffers from county roads have protected skylines from being intruded on by houses, measurable growth has yet to be seen.

Assistant Cunty Planner Alan Thomson said there was a rush on permit applications before the code was officially changed. Residents looking to build in the ag zone would still have to wait three years for ground to come out of farming use.

County Planner Mark Bordsen said his office has seen a number of applications for Rural Housing Certificates on ground that would have had to be idle under the old code since the changes went into effect May 15.

However, Thomson said, those applications have not led to a significant spike in building permit applications.

"It's steady, and I think it will stay steady," said Thomson. "I don't think we'll ever have too much growth."

Overall county building permits are up this year, with 102 issued through June. In contrast, the planning department issued its 100th building permit on July 12 of last year.

However, most of those permits have been issued for workshops and toolsheds.

Of the 102 building permits, seven were for new homes, 2 below last year, but on par with the amount issued in each of the previous two years.

County building inspector Dan Gladwill said more applications for building permits have been made as of late, but speculated that might be attributed to the avaialbility of contractors finishing up spring jobs.

The amount of building permits issued by the county spiked after commissioners approved changes to zoning regulations that allowed for cluster zones in the ag district.

"I have seen some doozies of houses," said Thomson, who noted one building permit application included plans for seven bathrooms.

You can't fool Father Time, Mother Nature, and the immutable laws of economics. You can't "free something up" with additional regulations. This is a lesson that may unfortunately cost Commissioners Partch and Finch their jobs next year.

Speaking of big houses, the Gazette had a front page story on a developer who is considering a high-end, world class resort on Rock Lake, out past Malden. The developer's staff met with the county commissioners to get a feel for how the project would be received and felt "everyone seemed receptive to the idea."

Hmmmmmm. With Commissioner Partch saying, "This is the only lake in Whitman County. And it's also one of the only lakes in the state without housing on it," you have to wonder how the developer came to that conclusion.

The commissioners have been touting turning Whitman County into a tourist destination and encouraging new housing development for what seems like forever. Now here it is, knocking on the door. This project could add millions in valuation to the property tax rolls, increase retail sales, and create 200 new jobs. The development would have its own hotel, restaurant, fire station, airport, beach, boat docks, and possibly even an 18-hole golf course and promises to be as self-sufficient as possible. If the commissioners fumble this ball, you have to question their commitment to growth and development.

"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 Brand for the Palouse?

According to today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

"A group of representatives from throughout the Palouse are looking to create a branding image for the so-called "Knowledge Corridor."
...
[Moscow Chamber of Commerce Interim Director Janice] McMillan said through the Knowledge Corridor concept she hopes to attract businesses that can help the area grow.

Considering Nancy Chaney, Mark Solomon, PARD, No Super WalMart, stalking herons, frolicking cute bunnies, viewsheds, used $40 bikes, charming valleys, tiny brooks, European cities, sweatshop forums, Main Street, unique rural character, a thousand other places, etc. ad nauseum, here is my entry for the "knowledge corridor" branding contest:


Why not? My brand would accomplish the same thing as what we read in the newspaper every day and save both paper and ink.

Why bother encouraging growth at all when there are people in the community doing everything they can to stop it?

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.

Why You Should Care About the Rural Residential Housing Ordinance

Heard this on KMAX Inland Northwest News yesterday.
Pullman pays 46% of Whitman County's property taxes. Remember, WSU is exempt from property tax.

That's stunning. In a county with an area of 2,150.37 square miles, a large part of the property tax revenue comes from an area of maybe 4-5 square miles.

That's one reason I would like to see more housing in the ag zone of the county. Let's spread the tax burden around a bit, shall we?

The Unholy Alliance, Part Four

When you read this April 25, 2005 column from Dr. Ronald D. Utt of the Heritage Foundation, think about the letters that have been in the Daily News recently concerning "smart growth." Think especially about the proposed changes to the Whitman County rural residential ordinance. Under the aegis of "conserving the environment," all that is being preserved is the rights and lifefstyles of the “already landed” middle and upper class.

Can Both Sides of the Sprawl Debate Find Common Ground on Property Rights?

One of the great myths spread by opponents of suburban development is that the land-use patterns we have today are the result of free-market forces, greedy developers, and unregulated property rights. Contrary to urban legend, gaudy strip malls and tacky subdivisions are more often a consequence of over half a century of zoning and land-use planning conducted under the guidance of professional planners in cooperation with elected officials. What repel us today are not the unintended consequences of free enterprise, but planning concepts from the 1960s that have dropped out of fashion.

Having failed us once, planners are asking for a second chance—along with more regulatory power than ever before—to impose their aesthetic sensibilities on the rest of us, the philistine masses. Instead of letting the planners have their way, communities should work to restore and strengthen individual property rights. Part of this is giving property owners and builders the freedom to construct housing that people want, not what the planners want to impose on them.

Erosion of Rights
Until the 1920s, property rights in America were seen to be nearly inviolable. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “nor shall property be taken for public use without just compensation.” This was considered the literal law of the land. (The Fourteenth Amendment extended the Fifth’s protection to actions by the states.) Property rights advocates argue that the Takings Clause also covers “regulatory takings” that limit the property’s use (and thus diminish its value), such as zoning restrictions. If so, either regulatory takings would be prohibited or, at the very least, the government would have to compensate property owners for land-use regulations that reduce the value of their holdings.

The courts, however, have not held this view. Their rejection of the idea of regulatory takings can be traced back to several decisions early in the 20th century. One of the most notable, or infamous, is the Supreme Court’s 1926 decision in Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., which upheld comprehensive zoning and laid the foundation for many of today’s limitations on individual property rights by sanctioning restrictions on land use.

At around the same time, the executive branch of the federal government was working to undermine property rights. During the Harding and Coolidge Administrations, the federal government became an active proponent of zoning and land-use planning. Under the direction of its Secretary, Herbert Hoover, the Department of Commerce created federal advisory committees on zoning in 1921 and published A Standard State Zoning Enabling Act in 1924, followed by A Standard City Planning Enabling Act in 1927. These model laws helped states and cities to create their own planning regimes.

The Smart Growth Movement
Despite the rapid spread of zoning in the 20th century, local officials and zoning boards still tended to respect the rights of landowners, often granting reasonable requests for variances from master plans. This careful balance between freedom and regulation began to tilt away from property owners in the 1990s, when the Smart Growth and New Urbanism movements rose to prominence. The activist wings of these movements gained traction by vilifying the suburbs and their residents. In response, many communities altered their zoning laws to slow the pace of suburbanization. The consequence has been to encourage leapfrog development—in what we now call exurbs—and even more sprawl.

It is revealing to look at the list of model communities that advocates of smart growth hold out as worthy of emulation. The Sierra Club conducts anti-sprawl tours in the Washington, D.C., area, and its guides highlight the beautiful neighborhoods of Old Town Alexandria in Virginia and Georgetown and Capitol Hill in Washington. Elsewhere in the country, anti-sprawl activists hold up Charleston and Savannah, both elegant cities, as role models, along with Society Hill in Philadelphia, Oakleigh in Mobile, the Garden District in New Orleans, and Beacon Hill in Boston.

These communities share a common trait besides their exquisite beauty and historical status: All were built before the advent of zoning, government planning, building codes, building inspections, building permits, and restrictive covenants governing the color of downspouts and window shutters. In short, they represent the spontaneous order of a cowboy capitalism long since regulated out of existence. Indeed, no enterprising developer could construct any of these communities today; the zoning ordinances of most of America’s counties and towns would stop him flat. Typical zoning provisions establish minimum lot sizes, minimum front and side setbacks, and minimum street widths. They make driveways and garages mandatory and prohibit mixed commercial and residential development. The lauded neighborhoods of the past, held up as examples of an ideal, wouldn’t measure up to today’s zoning. Building a neighborhood like that today requires local zoning and planning boards to grant a myriad of variances from existing rules. The boards, however, are seldom willing, in large part because citizens oppose higher density housing and the congestion it creates.

That zoning and planning laws effectively prohibit the construction of “ideal” neighborhoods reveals one of the ironies of the current debate on suburban land use: Advocates of smart growth and new urbanism are among the major casualties of land-use regulations that diminish property rights, despite their large role in encouraging such regulation.

Criticizing typical suburban developments with single-family detached houses on quarter-acre lots, smart growth advocates encourage higher-density development (smaller lot sizes) to conserve land and other resources; increased “walkability” and transit use to discourage auto use; greater social interaction among neighbors; and a mix of commercial and residential establishments. While some in the smart growth movement consider these high-density developments a lifestyle choice that should compete with typical suburban subdivisions for buyers, the movement’s activist wing would mandate high-density living. The activists would prohibit new lower-density suburbs because of the social costs that the activists say they impose on society.

These more extreme elements of the smart growth movement rely on harsh criticisms of suburban subdivisions to promote their alternative. In the process, they level many outlandish charges against suburbs and suburbanites—a sort-of national vilification. Typical of the abuse heaped on the inhabitants of cul-de-sacs is a recent Atlantic article by new urbanist James Howard Kunstler:

When we drive around and look at all this cartoon architecture and other junk that we’ve smeared all over the landscape, we register it as ugliness. This ugliness is the surface expression of deeper problems—problems that relate to the issue of our national character.

Not to be outdone, former National Governors Association executive Joel Hirshhorn argues that sprawl kills:

Know this: Sprawl is killing people, some 300,000 premature deaths annually because of the sprawl sedentary lifestyle, and it is killing our natural environment, scenic vistas, biodiversity, rural towns, and much more. The pursuit of happiness by the few profiting from sprawl land development is killing the future pursuit of happiness by the many. Spread this idea virus: sprawl kills.

Movement Hijacked by the NIMBYs
But these efforts to shame American consumers into high-density living have badly backfired. The campaign was cleverly hijacked by the suburban-based Not-In-My-Back-Yard, or NIMBY, anti-growth movement. Posing as believers in the lofty goals of new urbanism and environmental conservation, the NIMBYs are working hard to further diminish property rights with even more restrictive land use regulations in thousands of communities. As one planner puts it:

If a community or region refuses to grow, the result may be higher prices, economic displacement and hardship, and dangerous crowded housing in exchange for keeping a desirable quality of life for the “already landed” middle and upper income groups. If the local voters are willing to pay this price, why should planners try to prevent it?

One of NIMBYs’ major tools to deter growth and exclude less affluent residents is changing zoning to reduce densities and raise housing costs. Among the more common measures is “down zoning,” by which raw land previously zoned for, say, five houses per acre is rezoned to allow only one house per acre—or even one house per five, 10, or 20 acres in some communities. Additional regulations may require greenbelts and mandatory set-asides for conservation and prohibit building homes on land currently zoned for agriculture. Such rezoning also precludes, or greatly limits, the construction of apartments, townhouses, small-lot, cluster-type developments, and other high-density arrangements. In contrast to the country’s average lot size of about one-third of an acre, today’s growth control strategies require minimum lot sizes of five, 10, or 20 acres—beyond what many homebuyers want or can afford.

The consequence is more sprawl—sprawl that has little to do with the free market. Larger lots lead to fewer houses (and people) per square mile, which means that more space is needed to house a given population. This spreading out, in turn, leads to traffic congestion from more long-distance commuters, more expensive housing, and a diminished quality of life as commuters exchange leisure time for more affordable housing and longer commutes. The biggest losers under today’s restrictive land-use regulations, aside from moderate-income households who find themselves priced out of the market, are new urbanists, whose developments have become nearly impossible to build.

A Backlash Emerges
These costs and inconveniences are burdensome enough that well-organized resistance to today’s restrictive zoning practices is beginning to form. This resistance is coming from all points of the political spectrum, including some new urbanists and particularly planners and architects who consider current zoning practices to be one of the greatest obstacles to the development of their ideal communities. If it continues to grow, this resistance may have the potential to reverse the trend toward greater land regulation.

Further fueling the resistance is resentment of the growing abuse of eminent domain for purposes of “economic development.” Like anti-sprawl measures, the government’s power to force the sale of land with eminent domain is increasingly being used to displace the poor and replace them with richer people who pay higher taxes and need fewer services.

Is the tide turning? Perhaps so. In 2004, Oregon voters endorsed a referendum to hobble the state’s world-renowned “growth boundary” experiment, which prohibits development outside of specially zoned areas. The referendum requires Oregon municipalities to compensate those who own land outside of the boundaries or let them develop their land as they see fit, boundaries notwithstanding. In effect, Oregon law now makes no distinction between a regulatory taking and an eminent domain taking, and the citizens of the state have had some of their lost property rights restored.

More states and municipalities may follow suit, but their efforts are no substitute for action by the U.S. Congress to clarify and strengthen property rights in federal law. With property rights enshrined in the Constitution and explicitly imposed on the states, it is incumbent upon Congress to ensure that the courts—both federal and state—uphold them.

Unfortunately, I don't hold out much hope for us. The proposed Whitman County rural residential zoning ordinance tramples property rights so badly it can't even pass constitutional muster, the Washington State Supreme Court endorses the ravages of eminent domain, and the state's Growth Management Act, supposedly meant to protect the environment, has, according to a WSU Center for Real Estate Research study, caused a loss of affordable homes in all of Washington's 39 counties. And the voters have bought into all this. Given a chance to increase property rights by reining in Critical Areas Ordinances last election, they soundly rejected I-933. The legislature promised relief this session, but I have yet to see any proposals. The environmentalists and activist smart growthers have successfully allied with the NIMBYs to wield unprecedented power.

The Unholy Alliance, Part Two

I quoted from this 2000 column by Jerry Taylor, the Cato Institute's director of natural resource studies and Peter Van Doren, the editor of Regulation magazine, published by the Cato Institute, yesterday. Read the whole thing. It is absolute dynamite.

Sprawl for Me, But Not for Thee

Perhaps the oddest political coalition in America today is that of anti-suburban intellectuals and suburban "slow growth" activists. The two movements are allied in a campaign to combat suburban sprawl and promote strict governmental controls over land use and communal organization (controls termed "smart growth" by their advocates). So why would suburbanites make common cause with those who loathe both their communities and their way of life, who sneer at their tacky, soul-less neighborhoods? Because both factions seek the same goal: the end of migration from the major cities.

Consider the survey results published last month by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Wisconsinites were asked where they would like to live. Only 6 percent said in a major city. The largest group, 44 percent, said in rural areas; the second largest group, 27 percent, said they preferred the suburbs. At first glance, one might think that the Clinton/Gore campaign to promote "livable communities" (i.e., densely developed communities) would be resisted by a majority voters.

But look at what the survey went on to ask. "If you could control things, where would you prefer development to occur?" The most popular response (34 percent) was "in a major city"! Another question: "Do you favor zoning laws that would encourage communities to have smaller houses on smaller lots within walking distance of shopping and work?" Yes, said 76 percent of Wisconsinites. But when the survey asked, "Would you be interested in living in such a development?" 65 percent said no.

The Milwaukee Journal's findings are typical of survey results throughout the nation. Most people clearly prefer living in suburbia and exurbia but are opposed to other people living in suburbia and exurbia. That is, their ideal arrangement is to get into the castle and pull up the drawbridge the minute they cross the moat.

This is particularly true of people who already live in low-density communities. The campaign against more roads and more development reflects an attempt to preserve suburbia and exurbia from "invasion" and to prevent the areas from morphing into the communities that the inhabitants have just escaped.

This "I got mine, Jack!" attitude runs rampant through suburbia today, coloring the opinions of suburbanite Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. Conduct a poll on whether the government should promote mass transit, and 70 percent or so of respondents will reliably respond yes. Ask those same people whether they regularly use mass transit or would if it were more available, and the same number (or even larger) respond no. Sure we need buses and trains, they say . . . for the other guy.

Or consider the related question of scenic pastures outside suburban and exurban windows. "How important is it to maintain farming in Wisconsin?" the Milwaukee paper asked. "Very important," said 73 percent of Wisconsinites. And no wonder; farmland is the reason that a drive through Vermont is more charming than a drive through Connecticut. But to "Do you approve of using tax revenue to pay farmers not to develop their land?" 62 percent replied no.

So are respondents hoping that the state will charmingly talk farmers out of selling to developers? Of course not. They're hoping that the state will ban development in farm country and to heck with the farmer who loses a chance to retire comfortably by selling his back forty.

This attitude is nothing new in suburbia. Twenty years ago, in his classic book The Environmental Protection Hustle, Bernard Frieden, a professor of urban planning at MIT, blasted the alliance between suburban homeowners and anti-sprawl activists to restrict development. The anti-sprawl crusade, said Frieden, was founded on "phony issues" so as to "legitimize arrogant public policies designed to keep the average citizen from using the land, while preserving the social and fiscal advantages of the influential few."

But they don't make "progressives" like Frieden anymore. Today, the left perversely cheers Portland's anti-growth polices despite the fact that they have increased housing costs, which reduces housing prospects for the poor. "Hurrah!" say the fortunate incumbent homeowners who just happen to have bought their property before the new controls were put in place.

Unfortunately, the people most harmed by "smart growth" policies are poorer, younger Americans, who seldom vote and certainly don't vote in the communities that are busy walling them out. The stampede to harvest votes from soccer moms, however, will not be denied. If you're looking for a working definition of "unholy alliance," then this is it.

As evidence this unholy alliance is alive and well on the Palouse, I present Exhibit One, a letter that ran in yesterday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Size cap will protect Moscow

There are arguments on both sides as to whether a big box size cap would help or hurt Moscow’s economy. But the key issues are non-economic.

I don’t think most of us came to Moscow for the money, or the shopping opportunities. We came here (or came back) to get away from places that have too many people, too many cars, too much crime, pollution, gridlock, and sprawl.

I expect most people in Moscow could have made more money somewhere else. We came or stayed because of the special qualities of life here, and those have a lot to do with being a small university town in a relatively unpopulated state.

As more people come here, we need to be more selective about protecting the qualities that make Moscow attractive. We need to worry less about economic competition and more about protecting things that money can’t buy. If Moscow turns into a place we wouldn’t want to live in, having extra money in the bank would be poor compensation.

I want a strict size-cap ordinance to protect the investment I made in coming here to live in a special kind of community. I don’t know of any others like it. The developers can go to any number of places to make a buck, but where can I go to live if they wreck Moscow?

Jack R. Porter, Moscow

Of course, it's easy to talk about not worrying about money when you're an attorney.

Give It Away

One approach to rural growth and development is to just not have any. Make it virtually impossible to build on rural land, discourage new development, fight to keep things the way they always have been, and the population of the county will decline and businesses and schools will close. That's what has happened in Whitman County.

Then there's this approach, as reported in the Kansas City Star:

Towns tout free land to lure new residents

Struggling rural areas get creative in order to grow and save their way of life.

“Imagine a 720 square mile county with buffalo, farm animals and wildlife scattered across picturesque hillsides.”

From a town east of there: “Stroll or bike around town and you can count on being greeted by friendly citizens on every street. … We offer a friendly, small town atmosphere and an excellent education for your children in a safe school system, with small classes …”

Oh, and did we mention the land is free? All you have to do is build a home and move there.

The idea isn’t new. Marquette, Kan., grabbed national headlines when it began offering free land about four years ago. But other towns are jumping in fast and furious.

From Chetopa in the southeast to Atwood in the far northwest and from Argonia near the Oklahoma line to Mankato close to the Nebraska border, towns have decided they need to be creative. And aggressive.

More than 20 Kansas communities — and Nebraska and North Dakota towns living similar stories of declining populations — offer the promise of free land. Another Kansas county, which doesn’t have land to give away, wants in on the growth so bad it’s offering grants of up to $10,000.

“We’re all struggling for the same thing — it’s people,” said Jeff Benbrook, city administrator of Peabody, Kan. “Give us more people and we can do some things. Without people, you don’t have the taxes. Without taxes, you don’t have the money.”

For some, this free land program has worked. Several Kansas towns tell success stories of new families, more kids in classrooms and, for the first time in years, a faith in the future.

Last year alone, KansasFreeLand.com tallied more than 2 million hits.

People from as far away as Peru and Australia are calling and wanting tours. A woman from Maine is building a home on a free lot in Marquette, and the town is about to get the program’s first two-story home since it began in late 2002.

“You’ve got to step outside the box sometimes and say, ‘Look at what we’re doing,’ ” said Jeff Hillman, a key player in the Hodgeman County Land Rush program, which offers the grant money to people willing to build a home in the western Kansas community. “It’s hard to encourage people to move to rural areas.”

Towns have to do something, leaders said, because for many years communities across the Great Plains have been suffering. They’ve watched family farms die out and once-loyal natives move away to more prosperous areas.

In Marquette, the program has saved the elementary school. The town plans to offer free commercial land to entrepreneurs who build a business in Marquette.

Mayor Steve Piper said the town has grown from 350 people to about 527.

• • •

The seeds were planted before Marquette took off.

About 10 years ago, a developer in Minneapolis, the county seat of Ottawa County just north of Salina, wasn’t able to follow through with a planned project. The city eventually acquired the land but did not know what to do with it.

Then an idea emerged. Give it away, someone suggested. The program was launched without much fanfare.

People came. They stayed.

“We didn’t have the mentality that if something’s broken we have to fix it,” said Mark Freel, economic development director for Minneapolis. “It became, ‘Here’s an opportunity. Let’s try to take advantage of it and do the best with it.’ ”

The free land program, which was implemented into the town’s long-range plan, prompted 20 new homes to be built in its first phase and eight more in the second. Seven lots remain.

The lots in Minneapolis are as large as a half acre.

“People are getting good yards for kids,” said John Cyr, executive director of Kansas’ North Central Regional Planning Commission. “Good yards to do landscaping so they feel they have an individual home, not just tract housing.”

The town has added about 50 children to the school district and seen steady growth. Voters passed a school bond issue in November and people are excited about the future, Freel said.

“Create a success story in your little town and it changes the attitude,” he said. “If attitudes are changed, in a short time people realize there is a sense of hope.”

People like Todd Wilson are coming home.

He grew up in Minneapolis and always thought he would like to move back one day and raise his children. The free land program allowed him to do that about five years ago.

“It was too good a deal to pass up,” said Wilson, who works at the town’s funeral home.

He and his wife, Shelly, built a three-bedroom, two-bath home for $120,000 on the free lot. They have since spent about $30,000 on a renovation and now have five bedrooms and three bathrooms. Their oldest son is a kindergartner at the elementary school and their youngest son, a 22-month-old, enjoys a large yard.

“When I talk to friends in Kansas City and tell them about the free land, they just don’t understand it,” Wilson said.

• • •

Marquette town leaders thought maybe they could attract enough families to save the school.

“We figured if we brought in one or two families a year for a few years that we’d really be doing something,” said Piper, the mayor. “Then we get these calls.”

Each time a news story runs about the Kansas programs, and people go to the Web site, e-mails and calls flood city managers from Ellsworth and Lincoln to Atwood and Coffeyville.

“I have a box chock-full of calls,” said Chris Sramek, the economic development director of Rawlins County, where Atwood is located. “We’ve had a good 20 to 25 people visit the community.”

Not bad for a county that’s seen its population decline over the past 70 years from 7,000 people to about 2,900.

One measure of success is how welcoming older residents are to the new ones.

“The question is, how embracing are they to these new citizens?” said David Proctor, director of the center for engagement and community development at Kansas State University. “Some communities … they’ll attract the new citizens. Others, they may be (close-minded) and it’s difficult for community members to reach out and embrace new ideas.”

That’s one thing Sramek has worried about. He would like to see the free land program bring in new families, help bring back young people who left, or keep those even younger from leaving.

“It’s not going to be easy for our older generation,” Sramek said. “They built it and now we’re transitioning to new people. … They’re just sitting back waiting for us to maybe prove ourselves.”

Defining ‘free’

So the land is free?

Well, for the most part.

In some towns, plots have special assessment fees attached. And additional money may be required to prepare the land for building. Of course, property taxes are due each year.

“In reality, it’s free to a point,” said Stanley Walker, director of the Lincoln County, Kan., Economic Development Foundation. “It depends on how you define free.”

Each town also has certain rules and regulations — such as the size of the home and the number of bedrooms. At least one community requires an appearance before the City Council before approval.

Notice three important points from this article:

1. "Smart growth" won't work in rural areas. People are attracted to rural areas because they want "good yards for kids," not "Manhattan style living."
2. Young families with children are the lifeblood of any community.
3. Rural towns that embrace growth and change, live. Towns that don't, die.

Choosing Our Destiny

I’m beginning to worry about the Whitman County Gazette now that Thinh Nguyen is gone. The Gazette used to provide some of the best reporting on the Palouse. Now, we get stories like the one on the front page of last Thursday’s edition:

Old ag zone yields housing growth

The rural areas of Whitman County continued to see an influx of houses last year despite stringent stipulations on building homes in the county’s agricultural zone. The county issued 22 building permits for new houses, 18 of which were custom-built dwellings and four manufactured homes. This is the second highest number in the last six years.

In 2005, the county issued 24 permits for custom dwellings and 10 for manufactured homes. This was the high mark for the last six years.

Over those six years, 134 new houses have been located in rural areas of Whitman.

This is “yielding housing growth?” This is an “influx of houses?”

Pullman’s population is 27,030 with an area of 9 square miles. Whitman County, exlcuding Pullman, has a population of 13,710 with an area of 2,150.37 square miles.

Pullman added 1,639 housing units from 2000-2006. That’s one new home for every 16.49 residents or one new home for every 5/1000th of square mile.

Whitman County added 134 housing units from 2000-2006. That’s one new home for every 102.31 residents or one new home for every 16.04 square miles.

In 2000, there were 9,392 housing units in Pullman. 1,639 new units between 2000 and 2006 represent a 17% increase, or about 2.8% a year.

In 2000, there were 7,284 housing units in Whitman County outside of Pullman. 134 new units between 2000 and 2006 represent a 1.8% increase. or about 0.3% a year!!!! That’s not growth!! That’s stagnation!!

Is it any wonder that while Pullman gained 2,082 residents since 2000, that Whitman County (including Pullman) had an overall loss of 570 residents between 2000 and 2005?

Is it any wonder that Whitman County ranks FIFTH worst in the state of Washington for first-time homebuyer affordability?

Is it any wonder that the average home cost $170,000 in Whitman County in 2005 and that figure jumped 20 percent in 2006 and is currently hovering around $200,000?

Is it any wonder a business recruitment expert cited Whitman County’s high housing costs as a major factor against attracting manufacturing businesses to the area?

Is it any wonder that the Pullman “micropolitan” area, which includes Whitman County, was recently rated by a Bizjournals.com study #560 out of 577 U.S. "micropolitan" areas in terms of affordable housing?

Is it any wonder that a study by a University of Idaho economist concluded that because of the underdeveloped housing sector in Pullman and Whitman County, Moscow and Latah County might be benefitting as much from the growth of Schweitzer Engineering Labs as Pullman and Whitman County?

The answer is no. The only wonder is why the Gazette would even try to justify the onerous rural housing ordinance by perpetrating such a fraud of a story.

The Gazette article states:

The original ordinances were laid down as a way for planning and zoning countywide to control their own destiny.

It’s painfully clear now clear what destiny has been chosen by our leadership over the last three decades. Just ask the folks in Colfax, Rosalia, Palouse, Lacrosse, etc. who all face declining school enrollments and boarded-up businesses due to population loss. Just ask the twentysomething couple looking to buy a first home in Pullman.

We need to choose a better destiny for ourselves.

Top Ten Stories of 2006, Part I

Here we go again with another annual Palousitics tradition. This is my take on the biggest stories in Pullman and the Palouse, counting down from Number Ten to Number One. See if you can guess what they will be.

2006 will be remembered as the year of gridlock, delay and frustration. We're still waiting for Wal-Mart to be built, Fred Russell to go to trial, and free speech and academic diversity to be respected at WSU, just as we were at the end of 2005...

10. Cougin' It

Only the Republicans had a worse November than the WSU Cougars football team. Prior to the Arizona game on November 4, the Cougs were sitting pretty, ranked #25, having defeated bowl bound UCLA, Oregon State, and Oregon, and almost upsetting USC, with the team's first bowl berth since 2003 virtually guaranteed. Then the wheels came off, with the season culminating in one of the most humiliating Apple Cup losses in recent memory. Yet another year with no bowl and calls went out for Coach Bill Doba's head. The departure of defensive guru Robb Akey to Idaho in December does not bode well for a team that has lived off its defense for the last few years.

9. Water Issues

2006 seemed to be dominated by water issues, from worries over aquifer depletion and development, to water "summits", to talk of a reservoir in Moscow, and to the Washington Department of Ecology's ridiculous proposed stormwater regulations for Pullman. You can count on water being an even bigger issue in 2007, for the worse.

8. New WSU President

After WSU President V. Lane Rawlins announced that this would be his last year on the job, a search began for a new president. Controversy swirled around the process, as both students and the public felt disenfranchised from input. After seemingly in camera deliberations, the Board of Regents announced in December that Floyd Elson, President of the University of Missouri, would be the first African-American President of WSU. As the Vulcan proverb states, "Only Nixon can go to China." Perhaps it will take a minority president to rein in the out-of-control political correctness that plagues the campus and made WSU the subject of national embarrassment after national embarrassment. Hopefully, Elson can also heal the town-gown rift that has developed over the Wal-Mart issue, as a minority of faculty from the College of Liberal Arts has held up the Supercenter project for over two years despite wide support among townspeople.

7. Moscow's Left Turn

In November 2005, Mayor-Elect Nancy Chaney proclaimed that "Moscow was on a new path, and that it was a green one." Mayor Chaney and the Gang of Three (city councilmen Aaron Ament, Bob Stout, and John Dickinson) have certainly lived up to that promise in 2006, although some may think it is more red than green. Starting with getting rid of the Pledge of Allegiance at council meetings and trying to run New St. Andrews College and Christ Church out of town, Her Honor and the council have been busy. After three decades of retail dominance, Moscow's business-friendly reputation was quickly disemboweled by a big-box ordinance, a dark-store ordinance, a living wage ordinance, the rejection of various proposed developments, and a proposed retail store size cap. The coup de grace was a council vote denying the rezone of the Thompson property, prompting Wal-Mart to pull its plans for a Supercenter in Moscow in June. The residents of Pullman and Whitman County have been delighted with these developments, seeing a chance to restore the economic balance, but Moscow residents fought back, forming the Greater Moscow Alliance in May. Latah County resisted pressure to create its own big-box ordinance, but that probably will change as the new Latah County Commission will have a Democratic majority.

6. Rural Residential Zoning

At a seemingly glacial pace, the revised Whitman County rural residential zoning ordinance seems to finally be on the verge of approval. The changes will eliminate the three year moratorium on development of farmland that have (deliberately) frozen growth in the county since the mid-70s. Unfortunately, the new ordinance added many new onerous restrictions on house color, landscaping, buffer zones, hilltop development, etc. These proposed changes sparked widespread opposition from county residents and Schweitzer Engineering Labs during 2006 on the basis of restricting private property rights and lack of affordable housing. After a legal analysis over the summer, many of the conditions were found to be illegal and stricken. Sadly, some of the restrictions seem bound to go through into the final version. As proof of how much pent up need there is for housing in the county, Colfax annexed 1,200 acres of land in July. Already, 2/3 of that has been bought up by developers.

"Weed issues arise as Whitman County finalizes laws'"

From yesterday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Questions about weed control add new element to discussion

The subject of weed control popped up Monday night during what is expected to be Whitman County’s final public hearing on proposed changes to its rural-residential zoning laws.

Hilltop building, property size, location and landscape standards dominated the discussion at the beginning of the hearings, which began in September and continued throughout the fall.

County commissioners previously nixed portions of the law that determined what color people could paint their homes, and they decided to open up hilltops to development.

Potential consequences from mandated buffer zones between properties and the possibility of rapid weed growth were pointed out Monday.

Dale Dechenne, who farms near St. John, said the potential for residents to neglect the buffer zones could create weed havens that could threaten fields downwind.

He said farmers can’t plow and utilize the buffer zones, so motivation to spray the ground and control noxious weeds diminishes.

Dechenne said most people who don’t farm do not understand that everyone must control weeds or they become uncontrollable.

“It could be devastating,” he said.

Whitman County Planner Mark Bordsen said the county has laws that regulate weed control for the county.

Don Nelson, who farms west of Colfax, said the county is underfunded in regard to weed control, and people moving into the area won’t understand how weeds can devastate crops.

Under the proposed laws, buffer zones can be decreased if neighboring landowners sign an affidavit agreeing to that end.

The idea of rapid growth concerns some county residents as much as weeds.

Dechenne said development of any scale has been stifled in the county over the last 30 years. When development opens up, Dechenne hopes everyone won’t start building homes all over the county and blotch its rural reputation and beauty.

Others said the proposed laws are too restrictive. Robert Zorb, who owns property in the county, agreed with several speakers who said the proposed laws would strangle landowners’ property rights.

“A lot of people forget that we are taking the three-year waiting period off the ordinance,” Commissioner Greg Partch said. “We are not trying to close the county up, we are trying to open it up.”

Rhod McIntosh, who served on the planning commission that began drafting the proposed laws four years ago, said the goal is to protect farmers.

He also said everything in the proposed laws will not work as planned. He suggested the ordinance be a living document that can be changed as the county grows and changes.

“We want agricultural-based jobs in places like St. John,” Dechenne said. “But we need homes for them to live in and property to build on. It’s just not an easy situation. It’s tough.”

Commissioner Les Wigen said the public input was helpful.

“It’s nice to know where the people are at,” he said.

Wigen’s decision on the rural-residential laws will be his last before he retires as county commissioner.

The commissioners said they would write letters to address questions brought by speakers at Monday’s meeting.

There is a slight possibility that more public-input sessions and workshops could be scheduled, although commissioners expect to vote on the laws next Tuesday at 10:30 a.m.

Quickread

WHAT HAPPENED: Whitman County residents
told commissioners what they think about the proposed
rural-residential zoning laws.

WHAT IT MEANS: The proposed laws are in the refinement stages. Commissioners sought feedback from the public.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT: Commissioners will probably make a decision on the proposed laws at 10:30 p.m. Dec. 26.

WHY YOU SHOULD CARE: The proposed laws would change the way property is developed in the county.

So it seems the new rural residential zoning ordinance is destined to pass with some pretty onerous restrictions, despite ovrewhelming opposition. Oh well, at least the three year moratorium is being done away with.

I'm still amazed at how some in the county are more than happy to continue with the three year development moratorium. It's easy to see now how we got the moratorium in the first place. There is a very selfish "I've got mine, too bad for you" attitude that exists among some, and not just in Pullman. Some farmers seem to feel this way also. And it's a very unrealistic belief. Pent up housing demand or not, Whitman County is not going to turn into King or Snohomish County overnight. There are not going to be any 300 house subdivisions built in St. John.