The Whatcom Excavator
  • Home
    • About Us
    • Who's Planning Our Lives?
    • Diminishing Property Rights
    • NGO's & Public-Private Partners
    • Agenda 21
    • Buzzwords
    • Deep Thought
    • Best Available Science
    • Best Available Humor >
      • Humor Archive
  • The DREDGE
    • Gotta See This
    • How To Dredge
  • Bulldozed
    • Eco-Activism and County Policy
    • CELDF - "Democracy"
    • ALERT: Community Energy Challenge
  • Pig Trough
    • ReSources
    • Sustainable Connections
    • BALLE
    • ICLEI
    • Whatcom County Community Network
    • Big Wheels Award
  • Contact Us

Major ALERT! Command and Control Going Way Beyond Buffers Now

3/20/2012

10 Comments

 
If at all possible, ATTEND the Planning Commission meeting Thursday evening, March 22 at 6:30 pm in County Council Chambers, 311 Grand, Bellingham.   It could be a long sit.  By all accounts this is the one and only public hearing on some pretty serious business.

We think this is so serious that failing to raise strong outcry of “NO!” may leave us in chains for years.  “Chains” sound dramatic for a planning issue?   Folks, it’s not strong enough.

If you don’t live in a rural area you may think this isn’t your problem.   But believe us – it is.  This is so big, so ugly, it will affect everybody.

The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan "Rural Element" establishes a growth plan for the distribution of population across the whole county – apportioned between cities and rural areas.  The plan is to direct (through various mechanisms) 85% of all growth to urban areas – cities and urban growth areas.  How that number was reached is too elaborate to describe here, but twenty-four points of “invalidity” findings were made by the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) with patent disrespect for citizens' freedom to live where they prefer.   And this round of Comprehensive Plan changes will penalize everyone who doesn’t “get with the program.”

Why did the GMHB make these Comprehensive Plan findings?   Rabid opponents of rural growth – no, let’s speak frankly here, rabid opponents of rural USE – filed suits against the County, taking their complaints to a board of governor-appointees. Futurewise, Jean Melious, David Stalheim, and Wendy Harris simply couldn’t bear the idea that the rural population might use the land as it’s zoned.

The GMHB now demands that the county must expand protections to rural character (rolling conditions as much as possible back to 1990) by “containing or otherwise controlling” rural development in line with population projections.   Now the Planning Department is proposing an oppressive scheme that will take hold if it goes unchallenged.

What’s really new, really nasty, is something referred to in planning circles as "permit metering."   If this becomes a “policy option” Planning & Development may deny property owners permits to build on rural land -- not because building will do any tangible harm.  Permits could be denied if rural population growth doesn’t suit the county’s plan for any given year.

Of course WE already know that nobody has any right to build anywhere in Whatcom County – that requires permission.  No such “right” has existed here for years.  An application to build must pass through an elaborate obstacle course of regulations and “criteria” to assure that building (or activity) does no harm.  And zoning determines what kind of use is permitted in different places.   Zoning ordinances set density, how many houses per acre and so on.   But keeping density within limits isn’t enough for these control freaks.

The idea is to meter-out the use of private property over the course of time.   Why?  Some folks think this will keep more of the hoot in “Hooterville.”   They say this will keep the countryside more scenic, though we can’t imagine how.   More rustic?   Heaven help the poor folks who want to use their land to meet their own needs when they desire.

This new level of control over time is a leap beyond building regulations and zoning.   Do you still think WE exaggerate?   Read on.

The March 6 Planning and Development staff memorandum (here, Pages 5-6) describes this as "tracking" and "monitoring."   Dancing on the head of a pin, it says

"...rural monitoring would entail tracking development activity to make sure the number of residential units permitted in rural areas does not allow for population growth exceeding one year's worth of the 21-year projection for the rural areas."

"Population growth" – did you catch that?   Now that's an interesting term to use to meter out “one year’s worth” of permits.  Population is only counted every ten years by the federal census.  This tracking and monitoring - it would be based on what?   Estimates?   How?   By whom?   This talks about limiting new permits – but how does that apply to the number of people?  How do they propose to count us? Under what authority?

The proposed Comprehensive Plan change to Policy 2DD says:

“Annually monitor residential development activity in rural areas and compare that data with the adopted population growth projection for the rural areas. If it is apparent that rural growth is occurring at a significantly higher rate than adopted projections, the County shall take action to address the discrepancy. Actions may include: changing the allocation of the projected population growth, changing rural zoning or densities, limiting rural permit issuance, working with cities to foster appropriate growth in Urban Growth Areas through annexation or extension of utilities, or working with cities to reduce the difference in impact fees between the cities and the rural areas.”

We didn’t imagine this.

City folks – although this is the “Rural Element,” better ask what's meant by "cities to reduce the difference in impact fees."   Give up improvements?   Forego services?   Isn't that the purpose of impact fees?    Another point:  Should one level of government impose on another like that, to suit its own goals?   If WE editors were mayors or city council people, we’d find this mighty troubling.

There’s more nasty business – more “boot to the neck” for the greater good, for our health and welfare.

This edit expands "open space" requirements and other regulations to further reduce  impervious surface in rural to 20%.   Ever heard of that (pervious-impervious)?   Impervious surfaces are what "water doesn't soak into," like buildings and sidewalks, paved driveways, decks, garages, chicken coops, doghouses - you name it.  Even LAWNS are considered “impervious” according to the stormwater gendarmes nowadays.   "Undeveloped" buffers have been a passive taking of private property for years, if you've followed that subject, but this goes way beyond buffers.

And the edits require more clamping-down to “protect” the Lake Whatcom watershed – even though the condition of the lake is far from certain, and WRIA 1 has jumped the tracks.

Just yesterday Futurewise launched an e-mail blast encouraging its supporters to flood the Planning Commission with letters demanding even tighter controls (check it out) – like a further reduction of impervious surfaces to 10%, and not letting folks clear more than 35% vegetation from their rural lots.   Imagine being told that you have to let the weeds grow wild on 65% of YOUR land.  This is the kind of command and control these people want in our day-to-day lives, to have over others' private property.

There's too much to cover here in one spot.  If you want to know more, check the county webpage.   It's loaded with all the latest details.   And you’re having trouble finding details there, hit CONTACT above and send a question to the Vator.   The editors will try to direct readers toward information before the Thursday hearing – but we’re all scrambling.   There are only a couple of days to look through these drafts and prepare for Thursday.

BUT even if you don’t feel completely prepared, PLEASE DO GO to the Planning Commission session on Thursday.  Don’t be shy, step up to the microphone and make a point if you think something must be said.   Can you imagine – this plan could be on us for the next twenty years, and we have one evening to speak out.  There’s something very wrong about that, too.

It’s one thing to live with the "Growth Management Act," but this is not about growth management or sprawl any more.  Like that Futurewise e-mail says, their real goals are governance, control, and limits.

If this “legislation” is adopted the way it’s written now, we will all be in a world of hurt.
10 Comments
child of ww2
3/20/2012 03:31:41 am

I'm sending this out and about.

Reply
Ron Reimer
3/20/2012 11:05:08 pm

Much of this was covered in the king county case, much thrown out but the Progressive / future wise keeps wasting tax money and citizens time.

Reply
Greg Brown
3/22/2012 04:19:24 am

Does Cath Lehman overstep her bounds using her position at futurewise to effect the outcome of the Planning Commision? Her letter this week telling her readers to make sure, right now anc make sure her 3 bullet point items are pushed. I actually think this is a conflict of interest...

Reply
David Stalheim link
3/25/2012 03:16:51 am

When you move beyond the property rights argument, you need to look very carefully at the tax and budget implications of rural growth. The entire scheme of rural growth forecast was based on the assumption that there would be far less people living in rural areas than has taken place.

As a result, you see traffic increases on rural roads increasing 650% over the past 15 years, resulting in an estimated 150 MILLION DOLLARS to address this increased traffic based on faulty assumptions that rural growth will slow down. How much more will it cost us based on the level of rural growth that has actually been allowed?

I know that conservatives believe in the trickle down theory. The 1997 Comprehensive Plan allocated nearly 20,000 more people in the urban areas than what has taken place. Bellingham has actually achieved 85% of their growth target, whereas the small cities have achieved only 41%.

Why haven't the small cities achieved their rural growth targets? Now, don't go blaming the small cities like you'al like to do for Bellingham. The reason they haven't achieved their targets is because of rural growth.

Reply
Kris Halterman
3/25/2012 04:19:01 am

The proposal to set allocation numbers for urban and rural population numbers are not legally required. I question the legal need of the Planning Commission to recommend and the Council to set rigid standards to restrict the natural flow of land usage. Life is not static, the markets are not static, the economy is not static and the more fences we build around ourselves, the more difficult it is to address problems that will arise. The only beneficiary to having such rigid delineations are the Planning Staff, who are paid to work within the legal structure set forth by the County Planning Commission recommendations and legislative enactments of the County Council. This will prevent individuals from using their property legally for the benefit of themselves and their family and/or business.

Reply
Jayson Reimer
3/25/2012 12:38:40 pm

Nice try Pretending to be worried about fiscal policy Dave, no ones buying it. The people want to live free not by your or anyone elses design.

Reply
Greg Brown
3/26/2012 04:59:30 am

Mr Stalheim's traffic statistics are really astounding although I don't know where his data is from. No mater, my source, Randal O'Tool's "The Berst Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Live, Your Pocketbook and Your Future" explains how the traffic problems are a result of the Planners inability to see the reality of Smart Growth" Smart Growth is "a land use and transportation planning concept that call for higher-density, compact urban areas, mixing commercial with residential uses, and emphasizing pedestria-friendly design and trasit-orientated development over automiblie-oriented development, all aimed at reducing the amount of driving people need to do." Additionally, "smart growth is based on the design falacy that urban design shapes human behavior. In fact, the design features that smart growth would impose on urgan areas have little effect on people's travel habits". In fact, the smart growth efforts have increased the traffic conjestion as the push to place people in high-density populations and to develop transit/light rail locations have pushed the people and their "cars" out of the City.
Also ask Mr. Stalheim how accruate the planning's groth estimates have been over the last 10 years...?

Reply
Karl Uppiano link
3/25/2012 04:45:33 am

Where would We the People live, if we were at liberty to live anywhere we want? We would live wherever we could afford to live; wherever we could make a living -- either off the land, or by working for someone else, who probably also needs the liberty and freedom to make their own life and business decisions to prosper, and provide prosperity for their employees. Why is it the government's business to see that we don't?

Unchecked planning and zoning represents a kind of oppression that is contrary to individual liberty. Run by a few to control many, this oligarchy imposes its will -- and its agenda -- on the rest of us. As Mr. Stallheim points out, government planning is prone to error. We had at least two examples of this in the public hearing Thursday evening.

Estimates of population trends, and thus planning, was way off. In fact, this may have been the result of deliberately misleading data. During the public hearing, there was testimony about inaccurate claims of water shortages. The free market, on the other hand, automatically adapts to, and corrects errors, whether they're deliberate or accidental. It is much more difficult for special interests to control or defraud the free market. Developers will not develop land that nobody wants to occupy. They'll go broke if they try. But if there is a demand, what justifies government to thwart it? Sure, the environmentalists, the NIMBYs will all give you a litany of reasons, but they're special interests. If they can convince the masses voluntarily to agree with them, fine and dandy.

Governments are established among men to protect our liberty, and to provide services that we cannot, or do not wish to provide for ourselves (roads, police, fire, etc.). Some planning is needed to provide these services adequately and fairly, but we have allowed our governments to justify controlling a monotonically increasing sector of our lives.

Speaking of "growth targets" belies an implicit assumption that We the People need to be controlled and organized, instead of liberated. Left to our own devices, do we always make the right choices? Obviously not: Hip-hop is more popular than Beethoven. No wait -- that's just /my/ opinion.

Government derives its just authority from the consent of the governed. Where does it end? We know that government will not restrain itself. We the People must restrain it.

Reply
Ron Reimer
3/25/2012 02:55:19 pm

For 20 years of the GMA has proven it’s a failure. Cost of service and infrastructure in the rural areas are tricks of "levels of service."

Talk about costs: urban building lots double costs, property tax, time required to get anything done, subjective non-answers from consultants, county staff working directly for adversaries of the free market. I don't think this charade can be kept up much longer.

Florida threw its GMA out, and soon it will be obvious here how nonsensical it was to pretend a group of eggheads should be in charge.

David was the author of a billion dollar downzone - all done without a cost analysis. Who would have made up for all the lost taxes? Oh, that wasn't important. The fact remains, the GMA and its goals were working better before it was implemented than since.

The GMA has, like most government-led social controls, accomplished the opposite of its stated goal. I just don't get it. Instead of admitting that some ideas aren't good and government plans sometimes fail, the bureaucratic mind will sit and twist all information to fit into a predetermined outcome. This is why the free market works and government social manipulation always fails.

Reply
apply traffic control plans link
10/8/2012 05:02:46 pm

I was searching for the matter you shared through blog. It is quite interesting and obviously very informative for me. Thanks you very much!

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    WE Dredge!
    Picture
    Posting Rules:
    This forum is moderated.  Please make an effort to substantiate claims that support opinion.  Gratuitous profanity and ad-hominem attacks will not be accepted.  You can create a "nickname" if you'd like, and you don't have to reveal your e-mail address.   Feel free to share information and your honest thoughts.

    Categories

    All
    Agenda 21
    Best Available Science
    Big Government
    Eco Activism
    Ethics
    Freedom
    Planning
    Property Rights
    Science
    Small Business
    Social Engineering
    Taxes
    Welcome

    Archives

    January 2022
    September 2020
    August 2020
    April 2020
    November 2019
    August 2019
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011


    Automatic Updates

    Do you want to be notified when new content is added to this newsfeed? Most browsers allow you to subscribe to our Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed. Click on the RSS link below, and follow the instructions.

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.