County Takes Steps For Orderly Growth

Spokane County commissioners, accused for years of being quick to rubber-stamp whatever developments the real estate industry proposes, lately have shown some sensitivity to the larger community’s interest in land-use planning.

Commissioners have taken steps to make zoning policy clearer and more consistently enforced. And they have said “no” to several projects that ran contrary to county policy.

Developers point out - rightly - that the community needs growth. A lack of building sites can inflate housing prices and deter new industry from moving in and creating jobs.

But it helps the community to scrutinize development proposals and insist they be improved or even rejected if they would be injurious.

In Spokane County, we have experience with injurious growth. Septic tanks threaten our drinking water. Developments plopped down in rural forests and served by weakly funded fire districts are a public safety hazard. Big stores, sited without adequate streets or stoplights for the traffic they attract, cause clogged arterials. Poorly located housing tracts create rivers of cars that degrade existing neighborhoods.

County commissioners face a dual challenge: to say “no” when a project would do damage and to say “yes” when a project respects county plans and zoning. The interests of economic health require Spokane to define areas where growth is welcome and beneficial. That’s one thing good land-use planning is supposed to do.

Recently, commissioners replaced the county’s hearing examiner committee with a professional hearing examiner. The new examiner, a lawyer trained in land-use law, is expected to enforce the rules consistently, whereas the committee of lay people produced unpredictable decisions.

In another move toward clearer rules, county commissioners narrowed a loophole that had allowed subdividing land into 10-acre lots without any review of traffic or other adverse impacts; now, the county will intervene if the lots are smaller than 20 acres. Review doesn’t mean denial - it just means potential problems can be spotted and addressed.

Finally, commissioners have signaled a readiness to enforce the county’s comprehensive plan and zoning. For example, that’s why they said “no” to a convenience store at Bigelow and Argonne and to an otherwise attractive housing project on Glenrose Prairie.

Rarely is there any reason for joy in the rejection of a business investment. But if rules are clear - and enforced - developers also can look forward to a “yes” when they comply. They’ll have an incentive to look for the common ground where good planning and good business intersect.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster/For the editorial board