The League of Anti-Wal-Mart Vipers

Last night, the streets of the Paradise Ridge subdivision in Pullman were filled with the laughter of hundreds of trick-or-treaters.

Many of those children, including my own, after consuming far too much candy, settled down to sleep in safe, clean, new affordable homes in that same housing development.

But if Cheryl Morgan had had her way, my house, and all the others up here, would still be the site of Steve Mader's wheat stubble.

I first had a hint of this latest League of Women Voters' moonbattery back in June at Dino Rossi's Washington Idea Bank event. Pullman LWV President Alice Schroeder's great "idea" was wouldn't it be nice if the Growth Management Act and Critical Area Ordinances applied all over Washington, not just the urban areas. The Growth Management Act and Critical Area Ordinances, as you may know, are the satanic spawn of Olympia Democrats that have urban King County residents saddled with nationally-ranked high home prices and traffic congestion, while rural King County residents fear to trim weeds on their own property.

Why in the hell would we need more discussion about development in Pullman? Haven't three years, three appeals, three days of public hearings, 150 plus stories and editorials in the Daily News, innumerable press conferences and press releases, petitions from people in Perth, Australia, position papers, booths at the Lentil Festival, and about a gazillion angry letters to the editor bashing Wal-Mart been enough? Is there anyone in Pullman who thinks PARD has not had more than ample opportunity to make their case, over and over and over again, ad nauseam? Isn't developing anything in Pullman in particular, and Washington State in general, hard enough already? I quote from a story in today's Daily Evergreen:

Affordable Housing Glenn Crellin [sic], director of the Washington Center for Real Estate Research at WSU, said buying a first home is out of reach for many Pullman residents who earn a median income of approximately $33,600.

Housing in Whitman County is one of the least affordable in Washington, even though housing prices in Pullman are about $90,000 less than the average $316,700 in Washington, Crellin told the city council.

Many factors contribute to the problem. Pullman’s high student population lowers the median income, while relatively well-paid university employees drive up the price of housing with their demand. Interest rates, which reached 40-year lows in 2005, are again on the rise. Although land is comparatively cheap in Pullman, there is a lack of property owners interested in developing their land.

From a development point of view, building a home in Pullman is more expensive than in other areas, said Steve White, president of Coeur d’Alene-based Copper Basin Construction. Issues such as tough soil quality, a limited construction season, a shortage of laborers and a lack of locally available building materials make construction in Pullman more expensive then elsewhere.

“There is no magic wand we can wave to reduce costs,” White said.

Although there is no easy solution to such a complex issue, there are numerous options available. Inclusionary zoning, freeing up more land for development, mixed zoning and townhouse developments all might be used to create more affordable housing.

Pullman organizations have also worked to combat the issues. Tammy Lewis of the Palouse Economic Development Council has organized forums to increase awareness of alternative development concepts, zoning and land use policy and to inform landowners of their developmental options.

The Community Action Center is another Pullman organization working to address Pullman’s need for affordable housing. Karl Cozad, executive director of the group, said the CAC is working on a project to provide 26 low-cost family housing units.

Addressing affordable housing needs and adopting a comprehensive downtown plan were among city goals adopted this year.

Let's get something out of the way. There is NO SUCH THING as a perfect development. SOMEONE will always be against it. SOMEONE will always be negatively affected in some way. That is the nature of progress. It is painful sometimes. It can be disruptive, chaotic even. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

This LWV proposal shows the hypocrisy of these latte liberals. Many of the LWV members are comfortably retired from the university, with no small children at home and mortgages long since paid off. On issues that do not affect them directly, such as foreign policy, immigration, abortion, health care, education, etc. they have no problem backing the socialistic, collectivist solutions that ease consciences during their coffee klatches. But, by God, if they are going to be personally inconvenienced by two seconds more of traffic, driving 5 feet further to find a parking spot, having their favorite view of a moose in the wheatfield blocked by ugly cookie cutter tract houses, or Heaven forbid, seeing more disgusting rednecks shopping here in town, then they become the biggest advocates of individual rights since Friedrich Hayek.

The (Chester County, PA) Daily Local News said it all in an editorial a few years ago.

If individuals can afford to buy up open space and keep it open, I say God bless 'em. The problem is that nobody is rich enough to preserve the "character" of a whole township, so the gentry wants to make decisions about other people's property, not just their own.

Of course, there is a role for public comment concerning development in a democracy. But that comment has to be proportional to the individual's involvement and the impact of the project upon the indvidual, not the minority veto the LWV envisions. In my mind, the rights of the landowner come first, followed by the greater good of the community. And the greater good sometimes means sucking it up and keeping your mouth shut. Your nice view of the sunset going to get blocked? Buy the land yourself then. Otherwise, keep your pie hole shut. You think a certain housing development is ugly? Fine. Don't live there. You don't like a certain store's "cheap Chinese crap?" Good for you. Don't shop there. My God, have we become such a nation of selfish whiners that we expect everything to go our way all the time, and when it doesn't, bitch all the way to city hall?

And make no mistake. The anti-Wal-Mart agenda is written all over this proposal. Last year's Pullman LWV Secretary was PARDner Marj Grunewald. Marj and her husband Bob testified at last year's public hearing they didn't want to "spend eternity at the ass-end of a Wal-Mart." This year's Pullman LWV Membership/Hospitality Chair is none other than our old friend Judy "The Trolley Conductor" Krueger.

I'm glad the Pullman City Council and Pullman Planning Commission will give this proposal the place it so richly deserves: the wastebasket.

From Monday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Group pushes for more input; Pullman League of Women Voters submits proposal that would require public meetings on all development projects

The Pullman League of Women Voters want residents to have more input in local development projects.

Organization President Alice Schroeder presented a proposed ordinance to the Pullman City Council last week that would require developers to host public meetings before submitting significant project applications.

The goal of the "Pre-land Development Application Community Meeting Ordinance" is to open the line of communication between developers and the public - an area Schroeder said city requirements lack.

"There are flaws communicating what is going to happen (with a project,)" Schroeder said. "We don't think that's good for the community or any of us citizens. The community should be involved in proposed development early."

The council did not discuss the proposal during its meeting last week. Schroeder also presented the Pullman Planning Commission with the idea Wednesday.

City Planner Pete Dickinson said he has not read the proposed ordinance in full. Discussions both internally and publicly will need to occur before anything is written into code. Similar proposals have been brought to the city in the past, but Dickinson said "to see a proposed ordinance with the language like (the Pullman League Of Women Voters draft) is uncommon."

The proposed ordinance is similar to ordinances in place in Spokane and Bellingham, Wash. It mandates that community meetings be scheduled prior to any development project applications are submitted, except that of single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes or manufactured homes on one lot. Amendments to the comprehensive plan and permits for signs also could be conducted without a meeting.

Residents living within 300 feet of the subject property would have to be notified of the meeting along with most city officials. A newspaper notice and sign installed on the property 30 days prior to the meeting also would be required. Developers would be required to submit an audio tape and written summary sheet of the meeting's proceedings and list of attendees to the city.

Schroeder said rumors and misinformation tend to circulate around the community regarding proposed developments, often resulting in heated public hearings, name calling and hurt feelings. If the public was able to weigh in on projects before the application process, the developer would likely deal with "more level headed people" and know the community's stance on the project before going through the lengthy application process.

Munir Daud, a Pullman-based architect, engineer and founder of Munir Daud and Associates, doesn't see it that way.

He said developers already have enough hoops to jump through to proceed with projects in Pullman. Environmental check lists, zone changes and reviews by the City Council and planning commission are challenging and time consuming. Each step, requires a meeting that provides the public a chance to voice their opinion.

"They have opportunities. You can go and say whatever you want ... If you're really concerned, you could write a letter. You don't have to add another (meeting,)" he said.

Dickinson said he has deferred the draft to City Attorney Laura McAloon for review.

Daud said adding another meeting into the mix could cause extended delays on some projects. Any alteration to a plan could add three to six months to a development.

"Every time you delay it, it's extremely costly," Daud said. "A six-month delay could kill the project."

Schroeder said she doesn't expect the process would delay projects, and developers wouldn't have to follow any of the public's suggestions. She noted a project may even benefit from resident input.

"It's a matter of a few hours to send (a meeting notification) out, put up a sign and have the meeting. I think in the long run, it's kind of an insurance policy for developers. I don't think it would delay at all. It's a courtesy," she said.

Schroeder used a 50-unit mixed use development - proposed for the intersection of Paradise and High streets earlier this year - as an example. The proposal, submitted by Paradise Downtown, LLC and H and R Development, LLC, was greatly opposed by the community because of potential effects to the Pioneer Hill neighborhood and area parking. H and R Development eventually withdrew its conditional use application, but Schroeder said both time and money could have been saved if the developers had met with the public before putting in an application.

"If they had talked to the community earlier, not only would it have saved effort and money ... they might well have come up with solutions," she said.

Planning Commission Chairman Stephen Garl said the commission and city staff recommend that developers talk to neighbors around a project site. The city also takes note of public comments, be it formally in a meeting, casually in conversation or by mail. Project applications also are public record, which can be accessed in the city planning office.

"We know that the public wants to be involved," he said. "The good developers - the 95 to 98 percent of them - are going to be talking to their neighbors and such anyway. This was to address the 2 to 5 percent."

Garl said he believes the proposed ordinance could invite opportunities to deviate from the city's comprehensive plan if the public is able to weigh in on each step of the process.

"Planning needs to be both long-range vision - which is the comprehensive plan - and its day-to-day implementation, which is the zoning ordinance. (The proposed ordinance) potentially brings in a piecemeal chopping up of each project, rather than setting the vision in the comprehensive plan and writing code that implements it," he said.

"If you start making every project revealable at a public meeting - for good or bad - what you're doing is you no longer are planning and keeping the big vision picture in front of you," Garl added. "If there is a change of the vision, it should be written in the comprehensive plan and zone code, rather than project by project."

"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 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.

"Affordable homes remain elusive"

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Pullman forum outlines problems, alternatives as families search for choices

Eunice Stime tries to find people the perfect home, but the task is becoming harder in today's housing market.

"There's no 'great deal' anymore. There are families that will live just about anywhere they can afford," said Stime, a Realtor for Beasley Realty in Pullman.

Stime recently sold a home to a married couple with a child. The family had been house-hunting for several years and finally settled on a one-bedroom in Colfax. The young couple's struggles are not new.

"People have to settle, and they're discouraged to buy," she said of many house-hunters.

Stime was one of more than 100 people who attended the Affordable Housing for Whitman County forum at the Gladish Community Center in Pullman on Thursday. The event was sponsored by the Palouse Economic Development Council and the Community Action Center. Attendants of the forum included Whitman County staff, representatives from cities across the region, developers, real estate agents, landlords and homeowners.

Three breakout groups provided people a chance to learn more about specific issues such as land development, alternative development concepts and zoning and land use.

Chris Venne, development finance director for Community Frameworks, a Spokane-based organization that provides affordable housing solutions for the Pacific Northwest, said there is no easy way to correct the affordable housing problem. One issue driving concerns is that housing prices are increasing while income levels are not increasing at the same rate, a phenomena Venne described as "the gap."

"The gap is growing. Over the last couple years, the gap is getting worse," he said.

In Whitman County, home values are increasing by about 45 percent, while incomes have upped by a little more than 10 percent.

The problem affects economic development, Venne said, providing anecdotes to describe the national affordable housing issue.

Moderate-level workers around the Inland Northwest are affected, he said. Firefighters and other emergency workers are moving into cheaper, more suburban areas that are farther away from their service area, adding to response times. Teachers cannot afford to purchase homes and often turn down jobs because of the lack of available affordable housing, which causes school administrators to hire third- and fourth-choice teaching candidates. Businesses are finding it difficult to recruit workers because employees can't afford to buy a home and settle down.

"People in the workforce are finding it harder and harder to find homes," he said. "What does that mean for the quality of life in that community? These examples are happening all over this region. It may not ever happen here ... but there are things that may happen if you let your housing problems go too far."

Glen Crellin, director of the Washington State University Center for Real Estate Research, put things in perspective. The average home along the West coast averages about $500,000, he said.

"That certainly makes communities like Pullman look down right affordable," he said. "But, as we know, the devil is in the details."

In Washington - the state with the highest minimum wage in the country - would-be first-time home buyers are increasingly unable to afford a house.

"If we can't get people into their first home, it's going to be harder for them to move up the ladder (of home ownership) in the future," Crellin said. "We need to have reasonable opportunities for first-time home buyers to participate in the realty market. The problem is critical in communities like this."

Presenters, such as Jim Soules, a Seattle developer with the Cottage Company LLC, provided housing alternatives such as small clusters of homes on a large lot. The homes can be quality built for less money, which is passed along to buyers. As those homes become more popular, though, values increase.

Self-help housing options, such as Habitat for Humanity and other similar programs, help people with low to moderate-level incomes pay for parts of their homes through sweat equity, meaning they help in its construction. Land trust options also allow moderate-income level families to purchase homes, while not owning the land. Modular and manufactured homes also are options.

Venne urges potential home owners and developers to be creative and local political leaders to take an interest. Only then will change occur and affordable housing become more available.

"Where there's a political will, it will happen," he said. "The problem is that there's no easy solution. There's no silver bullet."

It's pretty disppointing if these were the main issues that were discussed. If so, this sounded like a forum on the infamous "living wage" more than "affordable housing."

What does the minimum wage have to do with anything? Even in Washington, no one making minumum wage is going to be able to afford a house.

There's no mystery to affordable housing in Pullman. It's all about simple supply and demand. Ed Schweitzer has been saying this for years and years and still no one gets it. Even though we are surrounded by over 2000 square miles of farmland, restrictive zoning laws have made land to build on scarce and unavailable in Pullman and Whitman County. When land is expensive, so is the cost of housing. For example, remember the development across from the high school that is destroying "the charming little valley?" Some of the tiny lots there are going for $80,000.

I'm surprised the guy from the Washington State University Center for Real Estate Research didn't mention their study that showed how the Growth Management Act has increased home prices in Washington. Whitman County has opted out of the GMA, but our rural residential zoning ordinance in many ways is just as onerous. Environmental regulations ALWAYS work against affordability. After all, you can't protect your "viewshed" AND provide affordable housing to young families. But that suits most of our local drawbridgers just fine. They don't want any new people moving in anyway. They've got theirs already.

According to the 3rd Quarter 2006 Housing Market Snapshot from the Washington Center for Real Estate Research, Whitman County is FIFTH WORST in the state for First Time Buyer Affordability.

There's also a flip side to supply and demand. There is a supply of people in Pullman willing to pay $300,000 plus for a home. As long as there is, developers will keep building $300,000 plus homes. But as usual, the free market will provide the solution. Once the high end demand has been met, developers will then begin to address lower-end housing.

But as long as we have restrictive, anti-growth zoning in place, Pullman and Whitman County are never going to be good places for young people just starting out to live. We only educate and house them for four years and then export all that brain power somewhere else. Is that what we want?

As Always, PARD know best. NOT!

Interestingly enough, a second letter to the editor in as many days has been published by the Daily News. Today's letter seems to speak for the PARD organization. This letter shows some of the hypocritical nature of PARD.

For two years, the Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development and others have been calling for a thorough traffic study of Bishop Boulevard. It is one of the bases of our lawsuit against Wal-Mart and Pullman. Imagine our surprise to read that Pullman City Council was authorizing $45,000 for such a study. PARD's traffic expert pointed out 108 flaws with the earlier work, including many issues with the southeast end of Bishop - the central part of this new study.

Had the city used common sense two years ago, the study of Bishop, all its major arterial connections, and downtown, could have been paid for by Wal-Mart as a reasonable part of a full traffic and fiscal impact study mandated by city code. Now they are adding $45,000 in taxpayer money on top of the $27,000 spent in litigation with PARD that would have been unnecessary if this work was done at the beginning of the development process.

PARD has long argued the reasonable development of Bishop needs to be consistent with the Pullman Comprehensive Plan. We have supported most recent and planned developments on Bishop, including the Fireside Grille, Crimson and Grey, the expansion of Zeppoz, and the planned new site for Moscow-Pullman Building Supply. Other developments, such as the strip mall on southeast Bishop, are extremely ill-advised. It is built on a flood plain at the base of road banked in the wrong direction and will impair an already impacted area near the turn of a steep descent.

Our main objection, of course, is to the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter, which is of a scale and on a site that will create huge traffic problems. It is a little late for this $45,000 study to help rectify this issue; a lot of horses are already out of the barn. If done competently, there can be little doubt that without Wal-Mart, Bishop Boulevard will be a useable, attractive new shopping area.

Deirdre Sommerlad, Pullman

PARD claims they are not a one-hit wonder. They are here for Pullman in the long haul. It is not a group only focused on Wal-Mart, however, this letter seems to point out otherwise.

They now blame the city for the $27,000+ dollars spent in litigation. They now claim that if the city had made WalMart do a traffic impact study, PARD would not have sued to stop WalMart. That claim is laughable. No matter what, PARD would have sued to stop WalMart. The cost of the litigation is on the shoulders of PARD.

Once again PARD makes claims that they are okay with the Zeppoz expansion. Wow, how bold. Crimson and Grey and Fireside were okay in their book. However, by Crimson and Grey building their new location, they left a large store front empty in the Wheatland shopping center.

What about Pullman Building Supply? A huge location that rivals WalMart, but that, too, is okay with PARD. Once again, this proves, PARD is an anti-WalMart group. They can claim otherwise, but look at their ACTIONS for the proof. They use lipservice and make claims on their website about supporting certain developments. That is not being involved like they would have people believe.

Lastly, the idea that they are against the strip mall, that is being built across from Crimson and Grey is also laughable! They were so against it they didn't raise a stink. They didn't have a petition drive. They didn't sue to stop it. They didn't commission major studies. They used lipservice to make themselves appear to be a group that fights for or against all development in Pullman, when in reality their ACTIONS show they are anti-WalMart.

Let's stop playing these games. Be honest about your intentions. The main objection is the scale and location? That may be your main objection today. But what about yesterday? What about tomorrow? Your kitchen sink arguments is so old and tiresome I don't even want to battle them any more.

Let's get to the real issue here. A group of people are attempting to stop someone from exercising their rights. Property that is owned by and zoned for this kind of development is being delayed by PARD who has no ownership of said land. If PARD wants a say, they should pony up all the money they have used to commission studies and start lawsuits towards buying the land in question. Then PARD could do as they wish. But, as we know, most Liberals love to do "what is best" with every one of your dollars -- not theirs.

PARD, please stop this. You are weakening property rights. You are weakening the Pullman tax base. With these continued delays the state EPA is putting more restrictions on development through regulation. There is no doubt that once WalMart is built and the other businesses that will come to Pullman because of WalMart will have a harder time building because of the more harsh environmental regulations.

Each and every day PARD is stomping on property rights and is causing harm to Pullman's future.

The Pullman NIMBY Manifesto

WSU Professor Kathryn Meier's Town Crier column in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News is a Pullman NIMBY Manifesto for the ages.

The Palouse is an incredibly beautiful place. While traveling elsewhere, I have pointed to the ubiquitous Microsoft screensaver with the rolling green hills and said with pride, "That is where I live."

I fear that we may be taking this natural beauty for granted. In the course of discussions about public policy in Whitman County, I cannot recall seeing anything that specifically addresses issues concerning landscape, terrain and green space.

A couple of ongoing construction projects serve to illustrate the point. On Military Hill in Pullman, a development called "Meadow Creek" is being built opposite the high school. The name itself is ironic. In order to create access to the new housing development, a charming little valley has been partially filled in with massive amounts of soil to generate a roadway. The fill has obliterated a large section of the meadow, along with part of the creek (which now flows through a culvert). This is a rather major reworking of the local landscape, but I do not recall seeing any discussion of public hearings in the local press. It is possible the finished project will be gentle on the eye, and it will certainly provide much-needed housing, but I find the apparent lack of discussion about the larger issue disturbing.

Another interesting development is the small retail mall nearing completion along Bishop Boulevard. The building is attractive enough, and the retail space should be a great addition to Pullman. Again, what concerns me is a lack of debate about the location and design of the project. The new building sits along the bank of the river. Trees that had once been planted for public beautification were torn out along the riverfront, although some trees remain. The windowless back of the building faces the river. Aside from flood concerns, which certainly must have been addressed, the building seems to make poor use of a potentially scenic site in order to maximize frontage along Bishop Boulevard. I would have expected such a project to be scrutinized in a public hearing.

I have been saddened to read some recent letters to the Daily News stating landowners should be able to do whatever they want with their property, without any public oversight. Such an attitude seems to fly in the face of the concept of "civilization."

Some cities, such as Houston, have been notorious for laxity of building or zoning codes. This can result in an unfortunate hodgepodge in which liquor stores are situated next to day-care centers (as an example). In a city with geographical features as varied as ours, lack of public oversight can potentially result in significant remodeling of the landscape, or in buildings that disrupt their surroundings. While such developments may temporarily increase tax revenue, it is not in the long-term interest of a community to lose the very features that make it unique.

Since I am not serving as an investigative reporter, I have not scrutinized the local and state regulations that apply to the examples cited above. I can only comment that the level of public input in Pullman is much lower than what I have seen elsewhere. The idea that there can be only one public hearing on land-use issues is foreign to me. In our previous community (on the East Coast), such issues were subject to three hearings before the zoning and land-use board. The first hearing served to get people involved, as the local newspaper would report on the discussion that occurred. For a high-impact issue, more residents would then attend the subsequent meetings, bringing more data to support their viewpoints. Numerous residents were able to speak out at the meetings, and their opinions definitely made a difference. Participants in the meetings were able to hear both sides of the issue, and to see firsthand how consensus and compromise were reached by their officials. In Whitman County, petitions and letters to the editor appear to be a major means of public input, but I do not find them as effective as live public debate. If current policy actually prohibits more than one public hearing on issues that significantly affect our future, then perhaps it is time to change the policy.

I, for one don't live in a "screensaver." In the real world, as opposed to Ms. Meier's academic world, we live in a living, breathing, working community that has needs like affordable family housing, adequate retail, and a thriving tax base to keep the schools open, the fire and police departments staffed, the streets paved, and the water flowing. Wealthy professors like Meier and Jim Krueger move here from somewhere back East and expect Pullman to be like DisneyWorld I guess, beautiful scenery with no visible support or infrastructure so as not to disturb their little corner of paradise.

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE THE BASIS FOR CIVILIZATION!!! What is Meier thinking?

I can tell you that I drive (and walk) past the proposed Meadow Creek subdivison every day and it was not a "charming valley." It was just a weed-covered depression between two hills as you see in hundreds of thousands of other places on the Palouse. Give me a break.

So Ms. Meier wants her personal aesthetic tastes to trump private property rights, affordable family housing, adequate retail, and a thriving tax base? Washington's regulations are already perfect for Ms. Meier and the NIMBYers. All it takes is a few people to get a burr under their saddle and a developer's project is either cancelled or held up for years. Pullman like Houston? Please. If only we could be as prosperous as a city like Houston, but we never will because of selfish snobs like Meier and the outrageous environmental laws in Washington.

I am going to wrap up by quoting from a Mesquite [NM] Local News editorial I used a while back. It utterly destroys Ms. Meier's arguments and those of her ilk:

It’s ironic that residents of this gated community have started a petition to stop development of a new housing project because of their claim that the construction will “destroy the beautiful mountain ridges, bluffs and natural desert areas adjacent to Copper Bluffs.”

The irony is that they are living in a neighborhood that was only made possible after the land where their houses are now sitting was similarly carved and shaped to accommodate the construction.

It’s become a common cry in Mesquite for people whose homes often sit atop regal perches that were once deemed beautiful landscape features to now rail against the same kind of desecration that might mar their views.
...

More importantly, it’s un-American to tell a legitimate land-owner that he cannot use his land as he sees fit because it might “mess up somebody’s view.”

As has been pointed out before, you can’t buy a view, even when you’ve paid a half a million dollars for your house.

The only way is to get together with other like-minded neighbors and purchase the land, then apply deed restrictions to keep it pristine and untouched.

But the truth is that most homeowners aren’t willing to “put up or shut up” and tie up their own money to protect their surroundings.

Instead, they insist that their governments use tax dollars paid by all of us to buy the land to preserve their high-dollar views.

Or coerce their government officials to use building permit restrictions and zoning filibusters to accomplish the same goals, shutting out new residents hoping to taste that which has drawn the current homeowners to this desert delight.

The Unholy Alliance, Part Six

As I wrote previously, rural communities all over America are dealing with "smart growthers."

This excellent op-ed piece comes from The Chester County, PA Daily Local News. Chester County is a rural suburn of Philadelphia. The writer touches quite well on the dark side of "smart growth" and the unholy alliance between them and the "pull up the drawbridgers."

Some quotes, again all very applicable to Whitman County:

...occasionally plans for town homes or a strip mall are proposed. Whenever this happens, the locals take up their pitchforks and torches and head down to the township meeting en masse to kill Frankenstein's monster.
...

Elitism - Folks out here aren't exactly wondering where their next meal is coming from. Home prices and land are expensive. The subtext of preserving the "character" of the place essentially boils down to preserving the view from your deck and the class of kids that your kids associate with in school.

Now that the aristocracy has its little piece of paradise, it's time to pull up the drawbridge and keep out the hoi polloi.
...

Racism - Hand in hand with the class angle of deterring development is the nasty little unspoken aspect of race. Right now, the area is lily white. Open the place up to development with affordable country living and who knows what you'll bring in.

Infringement of personal property rights - If individuals can afford to buy up open space and keep it open, I say God bless 'em. The problem is that nobody is rich enough to preserve the "character" of a whole township, so the gentry wants to make decisions about other people's property, not just their own. This is one thing when it comes to limiting, say, a toxic waste dump in the village, but quite another when you're trying to impose a bike trail and pond on a tract home developer.

The Unholy Alliance, Part Five

Pullman and Whitman County are obviously not the only rural areas dealing with "pull up the drawbridgers."

So is Mesquite NM, as so eloquently described in this July 10, 2006 Mesquite Local News editorial:

Drawbridge Mentality Has No Place Here

It’s become a common scenario all over the country.

People move to popular destinations by the hundreds, snapping up property and establishing themselves as a community’s newest residents.

Then the call goes out to end growth, stop construction, and halt the entry of any new residents.

Basically, they want to “pull up the drawbridge” now that they have arrived, keeping others from coming in and disturbing the paradise they have found.

The drawbridge mentality has struck Mesquite, as evidenced by the recent move to halt construction above the Copper Bluffs neighborhood.

It’s ironic that residents of this gated community have started a petition to stop development of a new housing project because of their claim that the construction will “destroy the beautiful mountain ridges, bluffs and natural desert areas adjacent to Copper Bluffs.”

The irony is that they are living in a neighborhood that was only made possible after the land where their houses are now sitting was similarly carved and shaped to accommodate the construction.

It’s become a common cry in Mesquite for people whose homes often sit atop regal perches that were once deemed beautiful landscape features to now rail against the same kind of desecration that might mar their views.

In fact, if developers shied away from every elevated land mass that somebody thought was too picturesque to disturb, there would be no Calais, no Falcon Ridge, no Canyon Crest.

And no Copper Bluffs.

While nobody wants to see hills cavalierly flattened and destroyed, it’s ludicrous to think that a developer would kill his golden goose by turning millions of dollars worth of land investments into something ugly and unpalatable.

More importantly, it’s un-American to tell a legitimate land-owner that he cannot use his land as he sees fit because it might “mess up somebody’s view.”

As has been pointed out before, you can’t buy a view, even when you’ve paid a half a million dollars for your house.

The only way is to get together with other like-minded neighbors and purchase the land, then apply deed restrictions to keep it pristine and untouched.

But the truth is that most homeowners aren’t willing to “put up or shut up” and tie up their own money to protect their surroundings.

Instead, they insist that their governments use tax dollars paid by all of us to buy the land to preserve their high-dollar views.

Or coerce their government officials to use building permit restrictions and zoning filibusters to accomplish the same goals, shutting out new residents hoping to taste that which has drawn the current homeowners to this desert delight.

On Tuesday, that is most likely what will happen, as Copper Bluffs residents are expected to flood the Mesquite City Hall to convince the city council to stop the construction.

Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that nearly every person in that council chamber and the majority of us in Mesquite are living in houses built by visionary developers, those developers will have very few friends to balance the discourse.

In the final analysis, it comes down to a battle between property rights and property values.

This country draws its strength from the exercise of men and women yearning for the American dream of home ownership, and the American right to do with that property whatever their imagination can foster.

Protecting the status quo in the name of keeping property values in an upward spiral has to come second.

If we are to have any hope of returning to the greatness of days gone by, days of land rushes and pioneering and building communities out of nothingness, rights must be more important than money.

Every house ever built in Mesquite has negatively impacted somebody’s view.

That’s not a good enough reason to stop building homes for the next wave of people who will eventually become our next batch of good neighbors.

Let’s make the words “Welcome to Mesquite” more than just an empty Chamber of Commerce slogan.

Keep the gates open.

Keep the moats empty.

And keep the drawbridges down for our future friends.

Type rest of the post here

Think about this editorial the next time you read about the "viewscape" restrictions in the proposed Whitman County rural residential zoning ordinance. If only we had some local politicans bold enough to champion the view that property rights come first over property values.

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 Three

The following is excerpted from Dr. Steven Hayward’s speech at a Center of the American Experiment Luncheon Debate with Ted Mondale, Chairman, Twin Cities Met Council, on January 18, 2000. At the time, Dr. Hayward was senior fellow and director of the Center for Environmental and Regulatory Reform at the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy in San Francisco. I'm going to post some of the better quotes, but the whole speech is a good read.

The Irony of Smart Growth

As one planner in Portland told a reporter, "We got tired of protesting the Vietnam War, read Jane Jacobs, and decided to take over Portland."

[That, in a nutshell, explains the origin of PARD. They got tired of protesting against Dubya, so they read Al Norman's "How to Slam Dunk Wal-Mart" and decided to take over Pullman. - TF]
...

One great irony is that the chief Senate sponsor of the Interstate Highway Act in 1956 was Senator Albert Gore. So you could say Vice President Albert Gore, Jr.’s embrace of smart growth represents a case of the sins of the father being visited upon the son.
...

What prevents conservatives from becoming card-carrying members of the smart growth movement, however, is the overwhelming sense that many folks want to use stringent land use regulation to cram smart growth down our throats, whether we want it or not.
...

One hears throughout smart growth discourse a condescension toward suburbs and suburbanites that suggests many smart growth advocates aren’t simply aiming at improving the practical functioning of cities and suburbs, but in fact wish to transform them wholesale. This is not a new idea. I once stumbled across an article from a 1957 issue of the Community Planning Review titled "Hell Is a Suburb." In his famous 1967 book The Levittowners, Herbert Gans wrote that elite opinion regarded suburbanites as, "an uneducated, gullible, petty ‘mass’ which rejects the culture that would make it fully human, the ‘good government’ that would create the better community, and the proper planning that would do away with the landscape-despoiling little ‘boxes’ in which they live."

If you think this is merely academic hyperbole—Gans is a sociologist, after all—just check in with James Howard Kunstler, one of the leading advocates of smart growth and the new urbanism. In a speech to the Florida chapter of the American Institute of Architects, Kunstler said:

[Suburbia] is the dwelling place of untruth. We call it suburbia. A cartoon of rural life, with none of the qualities of it. I believe we in the CNU [Congress for the New Urbanism] recognize its profound culturally toxic nature.…

The common complaint about these brand-new mega-suburbs is that "everything looks the same." [Or some might say "a big-box clone of a thousand other places" - TF] This is only the most superficial symptom of their evil nature.

Its present is a dangerously provisional collective hallucination, nourished by a sado-masochistic idiot pop culture, which can fall apart at the slightest provocation. We have a name for this collective hallucination, by the way: The American Dream, a sort of mega-lie stating that this sort of ghastly provisional collective hallucination is the ultimate state of being worth aspiring to.

Nor is Kunstler an extreme or unusual example. Urban affairs writer Neal Pierce has called suburban sprawl "a virus eating us from the inside out." Both Kunstler and Pierce have blamed sprawl for the Columbine High School shootings, and others have blamed sprawl for obesity. Andres Duany, one of the leading neotraditional planners, wrote that "suburban sprawl is a cancerous growth rather than healthy growth…. The suburb is the last word in privatization, perhaps even its lethal consummation, and it spells the end of authentic civic life."
...

The social attack on sprawl also reminds me of the poet Randall Jarrell’s remark that we could solve all of our problems if only we could get our hands on this fellow "Society." Today "sprawl" has taken the place of "society" as the general cause of all bad things.[And nothing personifies "sprawl," and therefore "evil," to the liberals more than Wal-Mart]
...

The point is, no matter how probitive some smart growth critiques of urban form may be, I simply do not trust giving more power to people with such offensive and condescending attitudes. Very little good can come of it.
...

...a lot of the popularity of smart growth with ordinary citizens is that it is a high church version of NIMBYism. In other words, a lot of people who hear "smart growth" take it to mean "less growth," or no growth at all in many cases.

And that, my friends, is how PARD, No SuperWalMart and all these other anti-Wal-Mart groups sell themselves. They cloak their anti-capitalist agenda by appealing to people's selfishness and fear of change. Trust me, if Wal-Mart were being built on Terre View Dr, instead of Bishop Blvd., they would just find some other clever excuses besides "Wal-Mart will impede hospital access" and "Wal-Mart will desecrate the cemetery." And those in town who don't want any growth or chnage in Pullman would unquestioningly go right along with it as they do now.

And I agree with Dr. Hayward. I certainly don't want to give may more power to people with such "offensive and condescending attitudes." That's why I will do everything I can to stop that from happening.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

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.