Ooh!  Smack!

Wouldn’t it be nice if the Herald editors required/included a disclosure statement for Op-Ed writers?

I agree with Ham - Petree’s propaganda piece makes sense only as serving the people who pay him. Why was his interest in advocating for more development not identified?

I have no quarrel with advocacy - the Herald has printed a polemic from me, clearly identifying my corner - but hiding a writer’s bias is a subtle endorsement of his position.

The Herald failed to do its job here. Unless its job is to advocate for development interests.

Darn right I’m a good writer.
 
Buy local!
 
Read Dangerous Game by Jack Petree available on Kindle for PCs and other platforms right now.

Shameless self promotion out of the way, John makes a number of errors in his “rebuttal.”

Skipping the ad homonym attacks consider:

John misstates my approach.  I do not always “support more growth.”  Anyone remembering my contention that Bellingham?s current comprehensive plan assumption that several dozen 20 story buildings will be built downtown over the next 12 years is unlikely to be realistic can attest to that.  We didn?t even build those kinds of buildings when the market was hot.

It is also unlikely the approximately 3,000 housing units the County is assuming will be built at Old Town and Georgia Pacific within 19 years will be possible either.  And, of course, that is all going to happen on top of a bazillion units constructed elsewhere in the city.

I DO support managing growth to the extent possible.  Managing likely growth requires understanding free people will make decisions princes and principalities do not want them to make.  Irrefutable data demonstrates the fact citizens will chose to live in a city offering choice and diversity.  But only if choice and diversity is actually offered.
Re: the ?F? word:

Of course I meant Futurewise but, the hiring of a Futurewise board member to represent the County was the point, not the demonizing of a group, so I used the terms I did.

By the way, John, I am unfamiliar with any board case Mr. Bricklin represented the county on where Futurewise was challenging the county.  Could you cite me the case please?

Regarding greenhouse gasses and UGAs:  Check back through your old planning commission packets to find numerous submissions on the issues mentioned.  One only gets 700 words in a Herald article.  Tough to include a lot of documentation but, NWCitizen is more generous with the word count.

If you do look back you will notice County data (I even conveniently pointed it out to you at the time) showing that between 1995 and 2002, when the UGAs were both available and could be built in, Bellingham accepted about 62% of all the growth in Whatcom County and, countywide, the smaller cities and UGAs accepted nearly all the rest of the growth.

It must be true because Mr. Bricklin submitted that testimony before the Hearings Board.  The Board dutifully followed Mr. Bricklin’s instructions, citing the data in its decision.

You marveled at that in 2008.  ?Wow, this growth management stuff works.? (my paraphrase of your comments)

By the way, there were thousands of raw lots available in the unincorporated County at that time but people still preferred the city, because the city is a better choice, so long as choice is allowed.

Beginning in about 2002, you and yours closed down the UGAs of the cities to growth, making the growth areas, where growth is supposed to be encouraged,  the most protected areas in all of Whatcom County in terms of growth. 

Development can only occur after annexation so, all the work done with TDRs and zoning in the UGAs is meaningless because, once the cities annex, they get to zone any way they damn well please and none of the cities (for the most part) accept TDRs inside their limits.

You?ve even smiled John, and I think I heard a snicker, when I?ve pointed out that as a result of Planning Commission and Council actions in the past we have found a way to completely stop growth in Whatcom County ? just put the entire county into Bellingham?s Urban Growth Area.

As a bit of humor, if you will read the legislation you developed and passed forward as a Commissioner, you will enjoy the fact that the lands in the Bellingham UGA zoned to contain multifamily densities (8 - 24 units per acre) and counted for those densities in the land supply analysis you just approved last year actually require 75% of the homes in the zones be single family homes, that multifamily cannot be built on parcels smaller than 2 acres and that developers cannot actually build the multifamily until the single family is built!

The saving grace is it simply doesn’t matter because a developer cannot build in the UGA anyway… We just count the land supply as available.  Good job.

Well, I think I just answered #1 on your list.  If land is zoned for development but development is forbidden is the land really zoned for anything?

Issue #3 is inaccurate in a number of ways but, most especially, in terms of Whatcom County’s eligibility for grants and such; grants lost when a county is out of compliance with the growth management act.  In fact, the County continues to be out of compliance due to a challenge by Futurewise regarding rural lands so, the County cannot apply for those monies as the result of Futurewise challenges, not because of Jack Petree.

Regarding #4, as is pointed out above, Mr. Lesow’s agenda has been pretty much in place for most of the last decade.  During that decade we have completely reversed, (the County’s data, not mine, demonstrates the truth of this) a decade?s long trend during which at most points in time, most citizens have chosen to live in our cities.

Over the last three years, Bellingham, which once accounted for more than 60% of our growth accommodation (county and city figures, not mine) is only taking about 18% of the growth and all of the cities in the County combined are only accepting about 33%.

Probably the saddest comment of all in the “rebuttal” of my column is in the last portion of the piece.  It is sad because it is so disingenuous in terms of all John has worked so hard to accomplish over the past several years.

He says:

“Responsible planning requires an appreciation of historical population growth and immigration levels over decades, not the last Real Estate Bubble. Responsible planning is not based on developer’s agendas for their pet projects that require substantial investments of taxpayer funds to bring to fruition.”

In fact, no one has fought harder than Mr. Lesow to reject growth projections based on the past several decades and reflected in the projections provided by the State’s Office of Financial Management as being, by law, most likely to occur.
The plan passed last year, with Mr. Lesow as one of the decision makers instrumental in the development and passage of the plan, assumes future levels of growth well below those projected by the state.  In fact, over the past two years, in the depths of the recession, we are still growing at a rate higher than that projected for the next 20 years by Mr. Lesow and his colleagues. 

As to my client list, a manner John purports to know more about than I do:

I will consult with any business, association, activist group or other entity involved in the discussion and willing to accept my insistence that the facts speak for themselves.
I do not discuss my client base so Mr. Lesow’s comments are simply based on speculation.

One reason I do not discuss clients is the fact that John and others like him seem to believe credibility is based on who a person works for, not on fact.  Note the worshipful words regarding Mr. Bricklin as opposed to the demonizing of others in the article.

Well, enough of this,

Remember, buy local…read Dangerous Game by Jack Petree.  Published electronically?it?s the sustainable thing to do.

Jack,
Thanks for responding in detail.  For those of us who run on to the rocks trying to navigate the GMA waters, multiple perspectives are actually appreciated.

Pong to John?

Jack, you are a good writer.  But “darn good writer” is a little overstated, considering the content, timing and tone of your recent Herald Op Ed.

Don’t take this personally.  Shakespeare wrote some bad plays.  Sinatra sang some forgettable songs.  But using the Sinatra comparison, your Herald hit piece was the written equivalent of Sinatra and 50’s sexpot Dagmar singing “Mama Will Bark”.  This was not your best effort.  Not by a long shot.

Even your anonymous online acolytes at the Herald had trouble figuring out what you were talking about in the article.  “theredzone” called you a “hippie moonbat” and then had to retract when he figured out you were actually pro-development.

However, timing is everything.  And your Herald piece probably swayed a few hundred undecided voters towards the pro-development candidates in Tuesday’s primary.  Congrats. 

I left a message for Herald Op Editor Scott Ayers less than 24 hours after your article was published regarding my intention to submit a response.  I sent the article to the Herald shortly before it was posted on NW Citizen.

Nearly a week later, I have not even had the courtesy of a return call from the Herald.  Maybe they will eventually publish my article in the interests of allowing equal time for differing opinions.  But I"m not holding my breath.  Besides, timing is everything.  Advantage Petree.  For what that"s worth.

I genuinely like people that are good at what they do and I like you personally.  We just happen to disagree on land use issues.  I am sure you would do an equally commendable job advocating for the Compact City/Open Space agenda of Futurewise if you were their hired consultant.

However, CAITAC’s agenda is more urgent - the owners want to develop a lot of property in a hurry.  And CAITEC’s pockets are considerably deeper than Futurewise.  So the gravitational pull of your land use philosophy tends to tip towards those buckets of CAITAC silver rather than the amber fields of grain in North Bellingham.

I understand that. But since you and your client tends to skitter around the compensation issue, let me ask you straight out.  How much has CAITAC paid you in the 6 years you have been lobbying on their behalf?

Because in business, politics and life, it is always about The Money.  Sustainability, “Smart Growth” and Low Impact Development are all pleasant sounding, ginger terms used by consultants to soften the real impacts of unbridled development on county resource lands.

Smart growth in inappropriate places is no better than Dumb Growth—it just gets you to the same destination in First Class.

Remember the scene in Godfather I, when the heads of all the New York families are meeting to discuss the future of organized crime?

The question on the table is drugs, Don Corleone (Brando) is against the idea of getting into the sale and distribution of heroin.  But Don Barzini deftly and effectively sandbags Brando at the meeting and wins the assent of the heads of the 5 families to get into heroin. Barzini’s line was, “So it is decided, we will sell drugs, but it will be controlled”.

So it is with growth.  In truth, you and I know that current development patterns assure that Whatcom County’s #1 industry, Agriculture, will continue a slow but precipitous decline as the rural lands fill up with subdivisions.  It’s not a question of if, but when.

Larrabee Springs will eventually be developed, as will the new strip mall from Bellis Fair to the Lynden city limits. And nary a dollar in impact fees will be collected from the developers.  But proximate developments will benefit from the taxpayer’s investment of $170 million spent in widening the Guide Meridian.

Will the Guide be safer?  Depends on the volume of vehicular competition between thru traffic and those using the Guide to extend their commercial shopping opportunities from Bellingham to Lynden.  If you’ve navigated the Guide between I-5 and Bakerview at rush hour, you can get a taste of the future, congestion-wise. 

Our local politicians will continue to decry Sprawl, but will continue to allow it as long as its worst effects on the citizens of Whatcom County are NIMTO.  (Not In My Term of Office)

If a Futurewise bagman wrote a check for $20,000 to a green candidate’s campaign, the roars of indignation from property rights activists would be deafening.  But Nick Kaiser can write a $20,000 check to Kathy Kirschner’s campaign and there is hardly a whimper from anyone.

However, on a land use issue, (like UGA size) I am much more interested in the attitude of Mr. Kaiser and his investors than the opinions of Councilmember Kirschner.  I’d wager that Mr. Kaiser is, like CAITAC, decidedly pro-growth.  Few people cut big checks to promote environmental preservation.

I have read and considered your statistics on fill rates in the City of Bellingham.  They are equal parts interesting, irrelevant and mind-numbing. 

Since I am not a master number-cruncher, let me offer a layman’s perspective: 

I go into a gas station and Prepay for $40 worth of regular. When I pump $20 worth into the tank, the nozzle shuts off automatically.  But I continue to hold the lever and pump more gas.  Pretty soon the tank overflows and gas goes streaming all over the pavement. I continue pumping.  The manager runs out and confronts me.  “What are you doing?  You’re spilling gasoline all over the pavement”!

I am incredulous.  “But I came in here the other day and the car took $40 worth of gas and there was no problem”.  The manager responds.  “You idiot, the other day you had less gas in your tank.  Your tank is obviously fuller than it was and it won’t take the full $40 worth.  The rest spills out all over my pavement”.

So it is with the Bellingham UGA.  The City’s infill rate was better in the 90’s when there was more room for new people and new homes.  But land supply is finite and population growth is infinite.  Eventually the buildable lands are full and growth - like the gasoline in my example—spills out into the County. 

You still have not commented on the role of vested short plats in the rural areas contributing to sprawl.  But that is something you cannot ignore when you are lamenting the fact that people are moving out into the County in record numbers.  Do you support a downzone and a return to 40 acre Ag?

Your worst arguments are generally based on innuendo and twisted logic in the service of the results you want to reach. 

One example is the “Slap in the Face of Reason” baloney put forward in your Herald Op Ed.

You allege that the Planning Commission adopted its final recommendations to County Council the day before the final environmental impact statement was issued.

In fact, the draft EIS was available for review and consideration during the entire UGA process.  The law required that the final EIS only be available 7 days prior to the final decision.  You conveniently omit the fact that it was Jack Petree and his CAITAC patrons that forced the rushed process and tight deadlines.  Another procedural maneuver designed to throw sand into the gears of the planning process. 

You accuse me of self-aggrandizement—and in the next line refer NW Citizen readers to your own articles on planning.  What’s good for Jack apparently ain’t good for John.

As far as our expressed perspectives on land use, I stand by my decisions on the Planning Commission and any planning-related articles that I have written.

However, I would note that I wrote an article that foretold the cratering of the local real estate market a year before it occurred.  No one took much notice.  At the time everyone was too busy basking in the illusory wealth of their appreciating homes and borrowing like crazy on their equity. 

I recently suggested Whatcom County will become “Marysville North” if we don’t get a handle on sprawl.  On Tuesday, the Ferndale City Council voted 7-0 to annex 144 acres on either side of I-5 for regional retail developments.  So much for supporting a vibrant retail district in downtown Ferndale.  Do we really need Mega-stores north of Ferndale to cater to an eager market of Canadian consumers?  And all the additional border waits and traffic that will follow?

I could go on, but the hour is late and I’ve lost interest and patience.

I’ll close with a good-natured joke.  What do a greenfields developer and a Boeing 747 have in common?

Answer:  They both whine all the way to Japan.

can anyone, from any side of the discussion, honestly say John answered, refuted or otherwise discussed anything I said?

Come on…  be honest…

John is right… based on the implementation of the Comp Plan he worked so hard to implement, the county’s ag, forest and rural lands will fill up…

That’s what I said in my response… It is filling up because we have made the UGAs difficult to build in and have assigned growth to the ag, forest and rural lands…

I point to data demonstrating this is happening as a result of John’s hard work… And he says it’s irrelavent?

The Commissionn forced many decisions through before the draft EIS was available as well… the record is replete with my conversations to the Planning Commission expressing concern that the EIS was not available to inform things like population projections, jobs projections, and many other issues… the commission bought off on staff’s promise that whatever they decided, the EIS would support it…

I can understand John’s confustion about my worry that they made final decisions prior to the release of the final EIS… After all, if the EIS, at any stage is irrelavent, why would some stupid citizen object to our making a decision before the thing is released?  It’s irrelavent after all…

Please… no matter which “side” you are on, read Mr. Lesow’s “rebuttal.”  It is a mini example of the quality of the entire discussion over the past two years…

“Sure Jack, you can prove it’s not working but we have a solution… do MORE of what’s not working!”

Sure Jack, tap dance as you might, John Lesow nailed your feet to the floor. 

Your assertion, that the Comp Plan Lesow worked so hard to implement is the cause of the sprawl we suffer, is pure propaganda.  Repeat it as often as you will, it won’t become true. 

Far as I know, Lesow wasn’t anywhere near the scene of the crime when county fat cats finessed the intent of the Growth Management Act and vested small lots all over the county and designated huge parcels of resource lands as rural, and unprotected from residential growth.

That, and your lobbying, are what continues to drive sprawl in Whatcom county.

Sorry Greg,

As ususal you are wrong and, as usual, you know it but don’t much care.

When the origianl Growth Management planning was done it was known enough lots existed in the County at that time to house every man, woman and child expected for the next several decades in the County.

In the 2002 process considerable charting was done on this issue and much discussion centered on it.

tens of thousands of lots and potential lots have always been there, ready to use.

Between 1995 and 2002, despite the plentitude of lots, most growth (county data submitted to the hearings board by the futurewise board member hired to represent the county) most growth took place in the cities and their UGAs.

Beginning in 2002 when the agenda Mr. Lesow supports was first firmly put in control of county planning, the trend reversed itself and growth began to occur at high rates in the county.

The county’s data shows that, not mine. 

Do something new greg… the emperor’s comp plan has no clothes.  Pointing to it and saying, “Well Jack, if you just had an the imagination I do you would see clothes too,” doesn’t cut it.

Sorry Jack, but when the original GMA planning was done those lots only existed in the dreams of developers. 

The Act said regulations adopted would not prohibit uses legally existing on a parcel prior to adoption; which is not to say unbuilt residences exist, no matter how grand one’s dreams.

But if you insist on starting from false premises, how can we prevent you from reaching your faulty conclusions!

Tens of thousands of lots and potential lots did not exist, and the landed gentry ignored the mandate of the act to designate and protect resource lands in order to preserve the potential to create tens of thousands of lots in mis-designated rural zones.

I think I will do something new, Jack.  Ignore your transparently biased analysis and trust that others with memories and reasonable comprehension will not be duped by you either.

I know I will regret jumping into this fray, but Jack Petree asked if anyone can honestly say that John Lesow answered, refuted or otherwise discussed anything Jack said.  Yes, Jack, I can honestly say that John expertly addressed the key issue:  Why are people moving into the county?

John?s ?gas tank? analogy ? in which a full tank can no longer accept more gas ? clearly addresses why a smaller percentage of growth occurred in Bellingham and a higher percentage in the county.  The analogy also reminds us of the importance of the carrying capacity of a geographical area and the adverse impacts of exceeding that capacity.

Whether Jack Petree is a good writer or not seems irrelevant to me.  The best analysts generally do not write interesting prose.  Jack is paid to convince decision makers to expand the UGA.  Naturally, Jack will emphasize those arguments that support the goal of his customers.  Jack?s writings shouldn?t be confused with independent analysis; they are not.

As far as I know, John Lesow has no profit incentive to get involved in community affairs.  That being said, John does have an incentive to maintain the quality of life of the area he calls home.  To the extent John?s recommendations preserve the quality of life for the rest of us, they deserve our support.

One more thing?

It is a mistake to confuse data should with cause-and-effect.

Jack Petree refers to the data that shows a higher percentage of growth took place in the county after 2002 than before 2002.  He then concludes that the change in land use policies was the cause.  Unfortunately, such a conclusion cannot be drawn from that data.

In fact, it may be just as likely that more people were escaping over-built areas of the country and wanted to live in a rural environment.

The point is, I don?t know what CAUSED the change that took place after 2002, and neither does Jack. 

Data should not be confused with cause-and-effect.  When you confuse the two, you are likely to adopt a knee-jerk response that is more likely to aggravate the problem then fix it.  (Expansion of the UGA comes to mind.)

Sorry, out of town right now…

I’ll get some data for greg since, as he said on the Herald pages, he has time only for opinion, not for fact.

Larry might be right.

It may only be coincidence we reduced growth in the county when we provided a more pletiful land supply in the 1995-1997 process and it may only be coincidence growth in the county soared when we restricted land supply beingining and after 2002, and it may be only coincidence we continue to push more growth into the county on an increasing basis since.

It’s probaly only concidence the accountants missed the abuses of Wall Street and the big banks a few years ago and its probably only coincidence we created a housing crisis a couple of years ago when government insisted we finance 0 down loans on homes given to people who couldn’t afford them…

Anyway, it’s all coincidence… After all, an agenda driven approach to growth management dedidicated to ensuring fact is all ways (yes a pun for those with no humor) amounts to coincidence is accepted as truth.

Remember, who is the villan in the story, “The Emperor’s New Clothes?”

It is the little boy who pointed out the Emperor has no clothing, of course… He ruined it for everyone.”

I?m not sure which emperor has no clothes, but I do know that correlation does not imply causation.  Just because two event s occur together does not prove they have a cause-and-effect relationship.  That?s simply basic science and statistics.  Jack?s logical fallacy (known as ?cum hoc ergo propter hoc? or ?with this, therefore because of this?) may actually work when he testifies in front of decision makers, but it?s still false cause.

I don?t claim to be right.  I simply stated that I don?t know exactly what caused the data Jack refers to - and neither does Jack.  Jack?s sarcasm may be entertaining, but it doesn?t change the facts.

Jack, I’m glad you are out of town.  You remind me of the great western fiction writers.  A story loosely built around facts.  It is kind of like a conversation I had with folks the other day.  They were wondering what the weather was going to be like this weekend.  I said it was a 40% chance of rain.  Someone responded that that meant it was a 60% chance that it wouldn’t rain.  On the other hand, I said, it might mean that there was a 100% chance that it will rain 40% of the time.  Both facts were correct, but what is the real story?

As having been intimately involved in what you are discussing, Jack, I do have the facts.  But, I also, thankfully, have a life now that I left county employment.  I will gather some facts later and post them, along with a response to the warped story you got a chance to write in the Herald.  But for now, consider these quick facts:

* Your population data for Bellingham is driven by WS Office of Financial Management (OFM) population estimates, isn’t it?  Those numbers include annexations, and Bellingham wasn’t annexing areas with population during that timeframe you are reporting on “as fact.”  To show real growth trends, you need building permits for housing units.  And, it has to be correlated to the UGA, not corporate limits.  For example, the county data includes Birch Bay and Columbia Valley, both UGAs.  So, when you are putting your numbers together, you combine annexations and growth in other UGAs.  Your story might be true, but it stinks when you get to the real facts.  Come back to the conversation when you have real data, not skewed data.

*  Whatcom County isn’t charging development impact fees, so all of that inventory of lots created over the past twenty years, is now becoming even more enticing.  How does that factor into the movement of growth?  Don’t blame Futurewise for the fact that impact fees can’t be collected.  Jack Petree was, and still is, a litigant on GMA issues with the County.  Your petition to the Hearings Board is still pending, so I presume that you hope that the County is found non-compliant.  In fact, the County could have been found compliant if the Planning Commission’s recommendations were passed last year. 

* You mention that you don’t always support growth.  You are on record as downtown growth.  The fact is, Jack, that the analysis done last year didn’t even assign growth to downtown.  So, thanks for your clarification that you don’t always support growth.  As a big infill advocate, I hope you are wrong and that infill downtown and on the waterfront, and through other infill tools, will happen in Bellingham and other urban areas.

* You and your co-horts last year argued not once, but twice, that Whatcom County shouldn’t have had even six months to do the UGA review.  You argued that it should take no more than 60, maybe 90 days.  I was in on the hearing, Jack, so I know what happened.  The Hearings Board gave us 9 months, and then an extension.  Then, you complained that the process was too quick.

* How is your support of UGA expansion for Ferndale at the intersection of Slater and I-5 not sprawl?  No one will be walking to those stores, or biking.  The only opportunity will be to fire up that green house gas vehicle and go get your fix of big box retail (at least Ferndale doesn’t hide what they plan—that is actually the name of the zone).  No family wage jobs, no housing, just moving boxes from one part of Whatcom County to another.  But, with more emissions.

Oh, Jack, you got me fired up now.  They gave me an account, and now I get to write.  Thanks!

Mr. Stalheim,

Thanks for taking time to add your valuable insights.  Your comments remind me of a statement I made years ago:  ?Jack Petree is the master of comparing apples and oranges.?  I made this comment after discovering that Jack?s testimony to the Bellingham City Council compared gross density with net density.  When I mentioned this fact to Jack, he simply blew it off and told one council member that it really doesn?t matter.  No, it doesn?t matter if you don?t mind skewing the results by 40% ? in your favor!

I hope you are enjoying your life post county employment.  Thanks again for your insights.

A Western no less…

Better that than the science fictions I’m getting as answer to most of my contentions.

For the five people still reading this blog, an answer to Greg’s comment regarding the pre-existence of lots in the County can be easily found.

1970 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan:

“Accordingly, the entire population growth projected for the next 20 years could be entirely accommodated within the present built-up and non-farm rural areas.”

“It should be noted that in 1969 alone, a sufficient number of lots were proposed for subdivision to take care of the entire 20 year population increase.”

As for Mr. Stalheim, a few comments:

Please point to one sentence of support I have ever expressed for the expansion of Slater at I-5.  You are probably confusing my strong support and work for infill with mixed use (housing and commercial) at the intersection of I-5 and Axton Road right next to the regional transit facility and inside the city limits.  You will remember the County fought that and the old Ferndale Council made the project impossible to build.

Next, is the County out of compliance with GMA today because of any action I have pending or because of an action Futurewise has pending? 

Next, please note, I accurately portrayed the Bellingham Comp. Plan?s growth for downtown.  You inaccurately comment that your plans last year did not project growth downtown… It did… In the area of downtown you are speaking of here, considerable commercial growth was assumed while mixed uses with the nearly 3000 housing units I reported was projected for in the waterfront areas at GP and Old Town were assumed.

As to the low growth being accepted by Bellingham, the calculations are pretty easy to do.  They are based on OFM?s reporting of growth with annexations accounted for.  When trying to calculate actual growth numbers for cities and their UGAs, of course, annexations do not matter but, because OFM does not provide growth numbers for unincorporated UGA areas, they must be accounted for in addressing the entire county.

Fortunately, in terms of calculations but unfortunately in terms of controlling sprawl, the County?s policies have emasculated the city associated UGAs in terms of providing land supply for growth purposes so little or no growth takes place there.

Time will certainly tell in terms of this discussion.

The approach doggedly pursued and firmly entrenched by last year?s decision regarding the UGAs removed any certainty and thus, any impact, UGAs might have in managing growth in Whatcom County. 

We can go back and forth on the minutia but the fact is, no certainty costs jobs and investment and, the fact is, we continue to sprawl.

I am so sick of people throwing around the term ?sprawl?.  I suppose to Jack Petree, sprawl is any residence not built on land owned by his customers.

Until we adequately define sprawl ? and agree on a single definition ? we?ll be chasing our tails til the cows come home.  I published an NW Citizen article on Feb 12, 2009 entitled ?Infill, Sinfill & Sprawl? to begin defining these terms:

http://www.nwcitizen.com/entry/infill-sinfill-sprawl

If we can ever agree on what these terms mean, perhaps we?ll make some headway.  In the meantime, it?s clear to me that sprawl can only be stopped with appropriate zoning.  As long as zoning allows what some people consider sprawl, then sprawl will continue, regardless of what Jack Petree or I want.  Unfortunately, in Whatcom County, we don?t have appropriate zoning.  Eventually, virtually every vested lot in the county will have a home on it.  When that happens, we?ll have the worst of both worlds? we?ll have crammed so many people into the cities that no one will want to live there - AND we?ll have lost the vast majority of resource lands that farming and logging will be a thing of the past.

Jack Petree?s vision is a nightmare.  His dream ? of adding more land to the UGA every time they fill up ? is no utopia. 

When will we say enough is enough?

When will our electeds understand that you cannot have unlimited growth in a limited space?

When will they protect our drinking water?

When will they protect and preserve our resource lands with appropriate rezoning?

I suppose the answer to each of these questions is ? never.  Perhaps I should be asking:

When will we elect people who have the courage to speak truth to power - and to make the difficult decisions that are so obviously needed?

Jack, Jack, Jack….of course there are more than 5 people still reading this blog.  I understand that NW Citizen gets 300 to 400 visitors a day.  And many of those visitors are drawn to posts that have a higher number of responses.  Like yours. 

Reading Points of View from real live people usually enriches any discussion.  Much better than the online popcorn you get from the anonymous posters on the Herald blogs.

As far as our theories—and they are theories—on land use are concerned, I tend to favor the logistical view of growth and you favor the exponential.  Logistical works better for me because it is familiar; it is similar to market forecasting in the manufacturing business.  Exponential theory—that we will continue to grow forever and need to provide resource land to do so—does not seem reasonable to me, public policy-wise.

Since your article was political and this is a political blog, I’d like to shift gears a bit and expand on your reference to the 0 down mortgages you mentioned earlier.

You have written articles about land use in Canada and are familiar with British Columbia.  As a Tea Party/Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) guy, I would appreciate your take on why Canada, and particularly British Columbia, has weathered the latest housing bubbleburst so much better than Whatcom County.

Consider:  Canada has no Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.  Canada has no Federal Housing Administration.  Home purchase in Canada requires some kind of down payment;  it used to be 20% of the purchase price; is less now, but banks have never offered interest only mortgages up here.

You cannot deduct your mortgage interest payments from your Federal income tax in Canada.  Canadian housing prices are much higher than American homes.  eg;  the average home in the Vancouver Lower Mainland is over $500,000—nearly twice the price of a comparable Whatcom County home.

Yet, even without these generous government perks, Canadians have a higher rate of home ownership than Americans. 

Does the Tea Party and CAPR favor abolishing the FHA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?  As well as the mortgage interest deduction our income tax?  It would seem that a return to a freer market system (like Canada) would fit nicely into the Property Rights mantra that is being so successfully peddled in this election season.  I’d be interested in your perspectives on this.

And one final thing.  Don’t accuse me of “ad hominem” remarks or sneering at citizens at Planning Commission meetings.

You know that is a bald-faced lie.

Remember Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment—“Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican”.

Actually, about 50 people a day have been clicking through to read John’s article and the comments.  This has continued for eight days now. 

While NwCitizen gets 300 and more visitors a day when we are posting articles, we dropped down closer to 200 during much of June and July because we were not posting much.  If we go a week without a post then we cannot expect people to keep checking every day for posts.

But this website is not about high numbers.  The readers of this site are elected officials, political junkies and those who are department heads and people on government advisory boards and committees.  This site is read by those who govern.

And so the comment above that maybe 5 people are following this issue really misses the point.  Many more read now and will come back to this article in the future to read - and they are people who can consider what is written and act on it.  All articles and comments remain easily available and at no charge on NwCitizen and never go behind a firewall.

impressive readership… congratulations…

The responses on the Herald article are really the first time I’ve blogged so I had no idea that many people follow these things.

This time I spoke without knowing what I was talking about.  It was a snippy comment and uncalled for.

Larry is right about the need for a definition of sprawl.  It’s disturbing to hear about projects inside a city, zoned to accept growth for 20, 30 or more years defined as “sprawl.”  I mentioned my support for Pioneer Plaza, a mixed use lifestyle center inside the City Limits at Axton and I-5 (the main exit to Ferndale) with commercial below and residential units above.  The center was proposed for land right next to the regional transit terminal, a regional facility specifically built to attract high density urban development.  Some still called it sprawl.

It was particularly astonishing to have the County oppose the development as it would seemingly be everything the County would want in a development. 

Here’s my definition of sprawl in the context of the Growth Management Act:

When someone chooses to purchase land in the County because it is the lifestyle choice that person wants, the choice is not creating sprawl.

When we force someone who would prefer to live in an urban environment, were we to provide an adequate choice of housing types, price and so on in the Urban Growth Areas (both incorporated and unincorporated) to live outside the UGAs, we create sprawl.

We proved in the 1990s people would choose to live in the cities when an adequate land supply provided a range of choice.  We proved in the first decade of this century that slamming an iron curtain down at the city limits and restricting choice leads people to make choices we wish they would not make.

It is the Growth Management Act.  It is neither the Stop Growth Act nor the Encourage Growth Act. 
Regarding last year?s enactment:  As my dad used to say, “It is amazing how many people are willing to crap in their own nest to make sure others don’t use it.”

Jack?s response to the issues is so feeble, I can hardly motivate myself to respond. 

As they say, a leopard can not change his spots.  So it is with Jack.  Always harping on housing choice but ignoring the real purpose of the Growth Management Act (GMA):  To prevent uncoordinated and unplanned growth from threatening the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state.  (RCW 36.70A.010)

Jack?s definition of sprawl totally disregards the thrust of the GMA.

It?s worth repeating that the GMA is not the Growth Accommodation Act.  Manage is an active verb meaning ?to handle, direct, govern, control or alter for a purpose.?  Accommodation is passive and means ?to make room for.?  Jack?s sprawl definition would simply make room for growth without any regard to the adverse impacts.  I don?t buy it, and I doubt anyone else does either.

Again, I can?t really get motivated to add more.  Mr. Lesow?  Mr. Kirsch?  Got anything?

I was hoping not to do this, but I suspect most people won?t go back and read my Feb 12, 2009 article, which compiles various expert definitions for sprawl and infill; so I?m copying that excerpt here.  Note that I have coined the term ?Sinfill? to represent infill that sucks:

From my Infill, Sinfill & Sprawl article @
http://www.nwcitizen.com/entry/infill-sinfill-sprawl

Experts in this field understand there are key distinctions between infill, sinfill and sprawl. The Northeast-Midwest Institute (NMI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to economic vitality and environmental quality. The Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) is a nonprofit organization working with architects, developers, and planners to develop coherent regional planning, walkable neighborhoods, and attractive, accommodating civic spaces. Together, these professional organizations have studied these issues in depth and, in 2001, jointly published Strategies for Successful Infill Development.

In their publication, NMI and CNU make a clear distinction between successful infill and unsuccessful infill. Based on these distinctions ? as well as those identified by the Washington Department of Community, Trade & Economic Development (CTED), PolicyLink (a national research and action institute advancing economic and social equity), the Maryland Department of Planning, and the City of Sacramento, a clear picture emerges.

As it turns out, unsuccessful infill development (i.e. infill that sucks, aka sinfill) has virtually the same characteristics as sprawl. Both:
? Include poorly designed or located residential subdivisions in urban fringe or rural areas;
? Invade land important for environmental and natural resource protection;
? Destroy the intrinsic visual character of the landscape;
? Create traffic congestion; and
? Disrupt neighborhoods and erode a sense of community

On the other hand, successful infill:
? Includes development of vacant sites, or redevelopment and re-use of existing sites and buildings within built up areas where infrastructure and services are already in place;
? Is located downtown or on a transit corridor, near employment, schools, shopping, and recreational & cultural amenities;
? Preserves natural beauty, farmland, forest land, open space, parklands, public spaces, high value lands and critical environmental areas, including wetlands, fish & wildlife habitats of local importance, and geologically hazardous areas;
? Provides alternatives to driving;
? Preserves semi-rural areas that lie at the urban fringe;
? Considers long-term quality of life service levels; and
? Enjoys strong public participation and support.

Larry, you and I have been over this ground before. 

Though it must be gained by a complete reading of the Act, the intent of the legislature, that growth in the state be managed, is primarily concerned with conserving resource lands and preserving rural character.

The first step mandated by the Act was to “adopt development regulations on or before September 1, 1991, to assure the conservation of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands…” [RCW 30.70A.060]

Adoption of comprehensive plans was of secondary importance, and counties and cities needn’t adopt a comprehensive plan under the Act until July 1, 1994, and if the county has a population of less than fifty thousand, January 1, 1995.

The priority in time of designating and conserving resource lands is consistent with their protection’s priority; not to say that all the feel good, livable cities and happy lives stuff is unimportant, it’s just secondary.

Before enumerating these secondary goals [36.70A.020] which have been exploited by the likes of Petree to advance their self-interests ahead of the true purpose of growth management, the legislature acknowledged, “the importance of rural lands and rural character to Washington’s economy, its people, and its environment… Rural lands and rural-based economies enhance the economic desirability of the state, help to preserve traditional economic activities, and contribute to the state’s overall quality of life. [RCW 36.70A.011]

So, to the extent the building industry would like to confuse the issue, and characterize the Act as a mandate to plan for development; in fact, the Act really is first and foremost about conserving agricultural, forest and mineral lands for posterity and preserving a rural lifestyle (which is more than just having a house outside the city.)

It?s hard to fathom that we?re even discussing an expansion of the UGA given today?s announcement that sales of existing homes have fallen to a 15-year low, down more than 27% last month and more than 25% year-to-year.  Why are we wasting precious time on this issue?  Oh yeah, Caitac?s minions and bottomless well.  Talk about a money pit!

New home sales will be reported tomorrow at 7 AM.  Can?t wait?

Jack,

I thought you were out of town, and I didn’t have to work responding to your stuff.  The PLANNING and Development Services Department should now be renamed the Development Services Department because they just laid off another 8 employees.  In the past year, that is 12 employees. You should enjoy the lack of time and objections from county planners now. 

What kind of conversations have you, or your attorney freinds, been having with “settling” the UGA dispute with respect to Caitac?  Rumor has it that there will be an ordinance introduc ed sometime soon.  There are already ordinances ready to go for the County Council to consider for Blaine UGA expansion and Yew Street.  Now, an ordinance is probably being prepared for Caitac. The timing, before the election, is particularly disturbing.  I presume that you are hoping for a vote before the certiciation of the next council member?

Jack, sprawl is Caitac and all the LAMIRDs combined.  Where does the sprawl stop along the Guide Meridian?  Do we really need a definition?  Isn’t there ample evidence, both visually and physically?  Taxpapers spent $175 million widening the Guide.  Do you think that there is a return on investment for that expense?  Sprawl is all the development along our marine shorelines, and up and down the I-5 corridor.  That is sprawl, and you have not fought it at all.

Your comments about downtown are, as usual, wrong.  You talked about “population”, not commercial development.  There was no population assigned to downtown.  I’d be more than willing to walk through all the data with you, because you are obviously a bit confused.  (It happens to us all.)

As to the evidence of you supporting sprawl, I wasn’t at the recent UGA expansion hearing, but the minutes of the Council quote you as follows:

“Jack Petree, 2955 Sunset, Bellingham, submitted an handout (on file) and spoke in support of the ordinance….Adopt the ordinance.”

Now, Jack, you are a good guy, and I love the debate, but I really want to enjoy the weather and my wood working, so I hope you take a break, and wait for my more coherent response about what is causing sprawl (hint:  county land use policies and administration of them).

Interest continues.  59 pageviews on Tuesday by 45 people.  The average time spent on the article and comments was just over 5 minutes.

New home sales fell in July to a record low 276,000 unit annual rate, with declines in all regions. 

Can someone please explain why more land is needed to build homes that cannot be sold?

Oh, I forgot, this has nothing to do with housing choices and everything to do with transferring public wealth to private land owners.

(Note to self: Need to purchase land on outskirts of city and coerce upzone so I can retire.)

Forget it, Larry.  You don’t have the political connections to finesse the law and get your little boondoggle blessed.

You need to have bought a politician or two (they’re cheap and easy) or be part of the club that runs the electeds around Whatcom county.

Better accept it.  Just pay your taxes and shut up.  It ain’t going to change.  The next class of “leaders” are already putting the for sale signs on their backs.

Truer words have never been spoken (at least not on this blog).  I can?t even get ?shriveled man? to meet with me.

Better move on to Plan B? both for retirement and my other issues.