Growth Management and a Decent Place to Live

A 30-year resident on Squalicum Lake Road, Dan Warner is a professor of business legal studies at Western Washington University; he is an attorney and a former County Councilmember. He is currently the chairman of Pro-Whatcom and has published numerous articles on growth-related issues.

This article may serve as a follow-up to the fine two-part series by Dave Paulsen that appeared in the June and July issues of Whatcom Watch.

I wish to re-iterate, from a single different source, Dave’s point that we have “exceeded our carrying capacity,” to disagree with Dave that the Growth Management Act contemplates any kind of “sustainable development,” and to suggest more explicitly what must be done legislatively and economically if we are to keep this place from becoming another Los Angeles County.

Growth is good, for a while. After that it is not good any more. We have reached that point. This should at least not be in dispute in Washington state. In October 2002, Governor Gary Locke of Washington state established a “Governor’s Sustainable Washington Advisory Panel” [Governor’s Sustainable Washington Advisory Panel, A New Path Forward: Action Plan for a Sustainable Washington (2003)] to examine the state of the state’s environment and to suggest things that its citizens might be do to improve it and move the state toward sustainability. In February 2003 the panel reported the following to the governor.

The state of the environment was “sobering indeed.” “Today’s reality”—as one section of the report is titled—is that our “health is at risk,” “social inequities [are] on the rise,” there is “decline and disruption in our Natural Systems,” there is “Loss of Economic Vitality, Opportunities Unrealized,” and there is “Threatened Biodiversity, Habitat, Icons” [id. 5-6].

Driving this diminishing expectation of sustainability, exacerbating it, compounding and confounding it, is relentless population growth. “Population [is] Growing, Associated Problems More So,” The advisory panel reported on the problems associated with growth:

“Current trends show Washington’s population will double from 1998 to 2050—the equivalent of adding 29 new Spokanes or Tacomas.

“By 2020, congestion is expected to affect fully one-third of all Washington roadways—more than 2,200 miles. This translates to three times more congestion than we have today.

“Over the past twenty years, Washington’s population has increased 43 percent, while the number of vehicles has grown 57 percent. Miles driven are up 88 percent.”

In Whatcom County, population grew 30.5 percent between 1990-2000. That is more than 3 percent per year. At 3 percent per year the population will double every 23 years.

The advisory panel concluded its “Today’s Reality” section with this admonition:

“If our present behavior continues unabated, we—and our children and grandchildren who come after us—will live in a state that is likely to offer little of the quality of life that has made Washington so attractive. Indeed, we have already lost much of what was enjoyed by Washingtonians just a few generations ago. It is critical that we take responsibility for the consequences of our actions and attempt to reverse current patterns. Our solutions must be thoughtful and far-reaching, affecting the fundamental choices and actions of our government, our businesses, our communities and our families. This is the essential challenge of our generation.”

Most people do not want more growth. Indeed most people on the West Coast, at least, do not want more growth. The National Association of Realtors and the National Association of Home Builders found, in 2002, that 52 percent of Californians felt growth in their communities should be discouraged [http://warealtor.com/news_events past _articles /archive qol/qolgrowthsruvey.asp].

A 1999 Oregon statewide survey found that 95 percent of respondents thought Oregon’s population was too big or just about right [U. of Oregon Survey Research Lab, 1999 Oregon Annual Social Indicators Survey (OASIS)]. In Washington state, “Over 60 percent of suburban voters favor strong limits on development to protect quality of life” [T. Trohimovich, GMA After 10 Years: Another Look, 30 (2002)].

And in Whatcom County a specific survey (but only of city of Bellingham residents) found that 56 percent of those polled thought population growth was either “much too fast” or “a little too fast” [Jull et al., Report from Growth Survey, Applied Research NW Technical & Research Reports, 1 (2004)]. Prof. James Napoli of WWU’s journalism class conducted a scientific (but small—only 196 computer-selected telephone numbers) of the whole county in 2003; the summary report noted “By far the largest concern for the future was the rate of growth and development in the county” [Colin McDonald, Summary of Survey Results, copy obtained from Office of the Mayor, October, 2003].

Our county vision, as part of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, also supports limits on growth. It says that Whatcom County should remain at base rural, and “75-90 percent of the land base in Whatcom County (excluding public land) should be . . . rural, agricultural and forestry use 50 years hence” [Comp Plan, Rural Lands, p. 2-59, 1997].

If most people do not want more growth, why does our country continue to grow so fast? Why is there such a disconnect between what people want and what they are getting?

Part of the reason is that many people can hardly envision a society without growth, even though they see what is happening and they don’t want population increase. That “growth is good” has been an article of faith for a long time in the West. It is a virtual religion, and anybody who says anything against it is a heretic denounced, more or less politely, by those who feel threatened by the necessary change.

So it needs to be observed (1) that growth does not decrease unemployment (it does increase the number of people employed), and—less obviously—(2) growth controls have little or no effect on housing prices. Yes, that’s right, little or none. Maybe the Whatcom Watch will print the whole article on that someday (ask them to do it!). And (3) well, if you can’t see that it is good for a while, but not good after that, then you really are blessed with blindness.

The state Legislature, in fact, has acted. In 1990 it adopted the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA never purported to try to stop growth; indeed, it might better be called the Growth Mandate Act. Dave Paulsen generously suggests that unsustainable development is not allowed under the GMA. To the contrary, I think the GMA’s short-term view assures the “Lynnwoodization” of this place.

The “clobber sections” of the GMA require the county, every ten years, to develop a plan to “accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding 20-year period” [RCW 36.70A.130(3)]. In short: the state projects a population increase, the county must plan to “accommodate” that increase, mostly in urban areas. When the urban areas get too full, and “high density threatens the character of the city, then expansion needs to be considered” (J. Petree, “Limits to Growth…,” Bellingham Weekly, 11-6-03, p. 9].

Thus the prospect is that every 10 years the cities will expand their boundaries to “accommodate” growth, until, like Los Angeles, we have a solid urban mass from the water to the mountains. This is exactly what is happening now, as we see in the discussion of the merging of the Bellingham and Ferndale Urban Growth Areas [Emily Weiner, “Ferndale: Plan for Growth With, Not Around, Bellingham,” The Bellingham Herald, Sept. 22, 2003, p. A1].

Of course the growth won’t continue indefinitely. It will stop when (1) we run out of necessary resources—probably water, around here, or (2) the place is so awful (like Los Angeles) that nobody wants to move here any more, unless they have to, or (3) we adopt policies to slow and eventually stop, growth.

“Growth is inevitable.” Well, if that’s true, then our democracy is a sham and we’re truly doomed! The best thing to do is hope to die before it gets too bad (or move on to Alaska, and hope to die before it gets too bad there). If “growth is inevitable” you don’t need to read this newspaper, except to see the quality of our life decline in the paper’s reportage. If “growth is inevitable” you better take some pictures of the pretty places around here to show your grandkids, because there’s not going to be much left. If “growth is inevitable” we are just helpless, helpless victims.

Can the GMA be used to stop growth? The act says that local jurisdictions “must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below [set standards] [RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)].

So, if we set the Level of Service (LOS) standard for, say, the Lummi Island ferry at whatever service level is reasonable (based on the mechanical capacities of the boat and staffing expenses), the county could refuse to issue any building permits on Lummi Island until we get a new ferry. Or, as the GMA allows, we could refuse to issue any new building permits until we get a new jail, if the LOS for jail is such that the jail is full. So, it might be possible—legally—to use the GMA to stop growth.

But what really needs to be done is that the GMA needs to be amended to allow counties to say “enough.” To allow counties control over their population is possible, or, if it is not now, we need to elect people (or adopt initiatives) that will make it possible. What’s needed is a slight modification of the statute: change the words from “shall accommodate” to “may accommodate,” that’s all. This requires the political will to make the necessary change.

But it won’t do for local advocates of growth limitation to denounce business as usual and insist on an immediate change in our entire culture and economy. It is not politically feasible to argue against new job creation (the necessary condition for growth limitation). But we must begin the effort somewhere; it certainly seems that we must foster the impetus for creating a society of appropriately declining growth at the local level, because it is there that citizens feel the adverse effects of growth most strongly. The no-growth argument tends to put the focus on a perceived problem (“growth is bad”); that immediately places people on the defensive and makes it difficult to engage them.

A more successful approach would be to build a compelling picture of a better future that demonstrates, in a practical way, how communities can enjoy strong local economies, decent living wages and job security, without a need for continual growth in the population or level of consumption. The heart of our society is based on daily commerce (business of all kinds) and until we change the way we conduct such commerce we have little chance of changing our attitudes about growth.

Once we can demonstrate that local communities can build thriving, independent economies by supporting local businesses, and that such an economy can thrive in the absence of population growth, we have begun to turn the tide. When people see and understand that they can have a comfortable standard of living, with job security, and at the same time see that they can be a part of a caring community that places emphasis on social and economic equity and environmental stewardship they will be willing, even eager, to become involved.

Two organizations in our community speak most directly to these goals: Pro-Whatcom (http://Pro-Whatcom.org) and Sustainable Connections (http://Sconnect.org.) §