Arrogance of sprawl’ police is unbounded
One size does not fit all.
Half a million residents of the greater Spokane metropolitan area (Spokane and Kootenai counties) live within a vast expanse of buildable land. Counting all ownerships, they have 3.61 acres of land per capita. Three million residents of Central Puget Sound (King, Snohomish and Pierce counties) are hemmed in by water and mountains, having access to only a third as much land — 1.2 acres per capita.
Why should both regions follow the same land-use rules? That was asked frequently during a briefing on Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA) conducted at the Central Valley School District Administration Building. Discussion was led by state Rep. Lynn Schindler, R-Otis Orchards; Tim Harris, chief counsel for the Building Industry Association of Washington; nd Marina Sukup, community development director for Spokane Valley.
Many in the overflow audience of more than 100 were drawn by proposals for high-density housing in areas where one-acre lots now prevail. Until recently, one-acre minimum lot size was a common zoning rule in the Spokane Valley. Then, Spokane County increased permitted densities as part of its GMA-mandated comprehensive planning process. For more information on those zoning changes or GMA, talk to a local planning office, building industry representative or any of several pro-GMA environmental groups.
I want to discuss GMA’s overall goal of reducing “sprawl,” by squeezing people into state-mandated “urban growth areas.” GMA supporters say this is necessary to control costs of roads, sewers and other public services. If costs were their genuine concern, why didn’t GMA supporters propose less intrusive control measures, such as site-specific development fees? In their heart, I suspect, GMA supporters think “sprawl” is just plain ugly, regardless of what it costs or who pays for it.
I share their distaste for those pastel “McMansions” that are sprouting on hilltops all over Eastern Washington and North Idaho. How much better it would be if the rich, the new rich and the wannabe rich displayed their wealth by donating to worthy causes, instead of building bigger houses than they can possibly need. Easier, too. A few minutes with a cloth and metal polish maintains those plaques we see honoring donors in hospitals, parks and other public places; no lawn mowing, window washing, burglar alarms or fire insurance.
The closest thing I have to a status symbol is an old Datsun Z-Car that waits patiently in my back yard for restoration. As a courtesy to neighbors, I keep my toy reasonably concealed. Otherwise, I consider my restoration plans (realistic or otherwise) to be none of their business.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Freedom and individual rights are not just for poor people. If I want my modest home to be my castle, I must respect the comparable rights of others, including those who can afford real castles. Accordingly, I keep my mouth shut (mostly), no matter how much it annoys me to see forests and meadows sacrificed to create backyard golf courses.
Not so GMA supporters. They see nothing ethically wrong with lobbying their personal tastes into laws binding on others. Their position recalls what free market economist Friedrich Hayek called “the socialist conceit.” An old-school European, Hayek used the term socialism to describe what modern Americans would call economic planning. Let’s modernize Hayek’s language by referring to “the bureaucratic conceit.”
Another aspect of “the bureaucratic conceit” is the belief of government planners that they can predict and control the future. An important rule of economics is that people don’t obey regulations, they adapt to them. Those adaptations often surprise regulators. Sometimes they defeat regulatory purposes.
Consider Idaho, which has no law comparable to Washington’s Growth Management Act. In areas overlaying the Spokane-Rathdrum Aquifer, the Panhandle Health District will issue permits for septic systems only on lots of five acres or more. Elsewhere, county or city planners can approve almost any zoning proposal. A knee-jerk (bureaucratic conceit) response might be, “So what? How many people would move to Plummer or Sandpoint, if it meant a daily commute to jobs in Spokane?” How about airline pilots? Retired people? Poor people receiving SSI disability or other federal entitlements?
As the modern economy becomes more adaptable, it also becomes more mobile. Light-footed, global-market-serving technology and service industries can follow their workers, renting space and moving minimal equipment as required.
Sprawl won’t be reduced; it will just move to Idaho — sometimes along with Spokane County jobs. There will be more driving, not less, as the immigrants return to shop and go to movies in Spokane. Eventually, people will get the lifestyle they want but might otherwise have preferred to live in Washington.
Lose, lose, lose, a common result of ethically arrogant, know-it-all regulation.