Owners of as many as 2,000 parcels of rural land in King County could find it impossible to build homes under proposed changes in the county zoning code. County Executive Ron Sims and his staff yesterday unveiled a package of code amendments to discourage home construction in rural areas -- a growth management objective having limited success in booming King County. County planners calculated that the changes, described as loophole closing, could mean as many as 2,000 dwelling units would not be built. The county now has 16,000 vacant, buildable parcels in rural areas outside its north-south urban-growth boundary, which generally divides the county east of Woodinville, Redmond, Sammamish, Issaquah, Renton and Auburn. The changes would require County Council approval. Large-lot requirements in rural areas haven't kept out development partly because affluent landowners are building big, expensive houses on large acreages, Sims noted. Homes are even sprouting in the most outlying areas, the forestry zones, where regulations allow just one dwelling per 80 acres. "We don't want one house on every 80 acres from here all the way to the top of the Cascades," he said.

http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/rurl04.shtml

Translation: We are going to force people to live in Seattle no matter whether they want to or not. Even one house on 80 acres is excessive, if it isnt on our turf. Lets face it, the cities are dying because they are unpleasant places to live and work. In the days of the internet, telecommuting, and e-commerce, we dont NEED cities near as much as we once did. We need to stop pouring tax dollars into these basket cases, and disperse into the countryside. We evolved as small group hunter-gatherers. We dont need (or want) a million neighbors.

Time to get rid of the MVET and all other taxes that go to subsidize these obsolete old dinosaurs. The technology necessary to live a dispersed existence is a whole lot cheaper and more readily available than the technology you need to live 5000 to the square miles in rabbit warrens. But the urban power structure is willing to do anything, including pass laws about what you can do on your own land (miles from them) to try to keep their political control.

-- Mark Stilson (Mark842@Hotmail.com), September 06, 1999

Answers

Highly intelligent post Mark, but these people(?) have a lot of supporters that believe we should live in little smelly boxes of 500 per box.

That's why they are doing everything they can to force people to move from the rural homes they have been living in for generations.

It's a much bigger plan that is being instituted all over the North American continent and not just the US.. Yep fight it. and don't let Seattle or King county have ANYTHING!

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

It is a much bigger plan. Where is it coming from, who supports it, where can I learn about it, what are its goals, it seems to be being implemented in our state and in Oregon as well, what about nationally? Its not really a publically debated topic, except vague reference to "Urban Sprawl".

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), September 06, 1999.

Greg-

For a rebuttal of the theory Id recommend reading Peter Gordons Brookings Institute piece:

Prove it: The costs and benefits of sprawl

Its available on his website:

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgordon/

If you wish to see what the true believers in the New Urbanism believe, go to their site Congree for New Urbanism:

http://www.cnu.org/ or you could go to our own urban growth management act ot the "Smartgrowth" site on Ron Sims page:

http://www.metrokc.gov/smartgrowth/

In my humble opinion, its a desperation grab by the large urban areas to hold on to their historic economic and political control over their states and resist the rising population, economic clout, and political clout of the suburbs.

-- Mark Stilson (Mark842@Hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

From todays Seattle Times- How TIMEly (pun intended)

"WILL someone with a voice louder than mine please tell Seattle that it doesn't own or operate Sound Transit? How the area's largest city got confused about who and what the regional transportation plan is supposed to serve is a mystery. But suddenly, we're hearing that a three-county system that happily took the votes and tax dollars of residents outside the city may collapse because two Seattle neighborhoods are affronted. That's right, a $3.9 billion plan that took several trips to the ballot box to finally win approval is in jeopardy because Seattle can't get its act together.

Seattle's usurpation of regional decisions extends all the way down to current City Council candidates. They all have opinions about how state and regional tax dollars should be spent inside the city. Regional leadership, the understanding that not all roads lead to Seattle and stop there, has been lost in a city Balkanized by its neighborhoods."

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/editorial/html98/vese_19990906.html

Now I dont particularly care if Sound Transit goes under, or not, I believe it is greatly over rated and will put lives at risk in the smaller cities of Kent, Auburn, and Puyallup by allowing freight trains to barrel through at 60mph (the price BNSF has charged to use THEIR rails for the Sounder trains). But I do think that it shows the arrogance of the Seattle establishment who want stadiums in their downtown, increased population in their downtown, increased restrictions on rural and suburban areas to force people downtown, and then have the incredible chutzpah to wine because downtown has a traffic problem.

The Cra

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 06, 1999.

The King County rural initiatives are unfair, and don't make consnstent sense. I will give you some examples:

1. They have this "density credit" plan that allows a land owner in a rural area with a large enough parcel to be attractive for rural preservation, to sell the development rights to someone else who wants to transfer them to an urban area. In the transaction, the density just doubles, for no apparent reason. So a land owner with 100 acres in a 5 acre zone has 20 "credits" that become 40 credits to sell to a developer in the urban area, who can increase the density by up to 50% in some other urban area. It doesn't work for the small land owner. The rich just get richer. The county will even buy these credits, and resell them. I note that the selling party does not even have to go through the plat process or expense to establish a right to develope the 100 acres, before they can sell development rights they don't yet have. Cute.

2. Something with a similar objective, but operated entirely differently was also proposed. Small property owners in the rural area who have more than two or more small lots that are contiguous, would have those established long standing legal lots "reaggregated" into larger lots, without compensation or the ability to sell the development rights that are taken in the process. This would be done as a zoning rule change, closing a loophole, but it looks a lot like the first program to me in terms of objective. The big difference is it would take development rights that are well established, and that people paid for when they bought the land or went through the plat process, and paid for again when they paid the assessments on separate buildable lots that were valued accordingly. Could it be, the difference is that this one only effects the small land owner, so no compensation is provided? If the county wants to buy development rights, they should buy these development rights that are real and well established; rather than potential development rights that have not yet been established.

3. Another proposal is to eliminate the opportuninty for a "mother- in-law" apartment in a rural zone. Promotes density, they say. A single family residence can already accomodate 8 unrelated individuals living in the same home. All they need to do is to define that to be a total of 8, including the mother-in-law apartment. The apartment would not add to the authorized density, but would make it possible to retain some privacy and independance when you have these family situations.

4. Another proposal is to change the rules about rounding up or rounding down, when calculation how many lots can be created on a piece of land. Currently, if you have 8 acres in a 5 acre zone you can create 2 lots. (8/5=1.6->2) Under the new proposal, you get 1 lot. Unfortunately, the assessor and land owners set property values and purchase and sale proces based on the current rules, so the change means land values and investments drop by a simple procedure change. It also means that many lots that were just under the nominal size, because of stree dedications or other minor reductions in area, become just small enough to lose a buildable lot or become unbuildable.

King County is run by the urban interests, and the city council and much of the staff do not support rural interests at all. It follows from the fact that most of the population in King County lives in cities, and their elected representatives are from the cities. Here is a case where those who believe this is wrong should work together to influence elected officials about a policy decision. It does not mean that if the decision does not go your way you should just cut the funding for county government. The issue is the decision, not the funding

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 06, 1999.

For those interested in this topic, you owe it to yourselves to go to the King County Comprehensive Plan site and take a look. Its protectionism with a bone tossed to developers. If youll bribe us with free land and/or social engineering we approve of, well let you develop land that we have made cheap by zoning it rural. Since I dont live in King County I really wouldnt care about this, but they are subsidizing it all with tax money from the rest of us.

http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/orpp/compplan/

April 20, 1999This program shall follow the 1994 adoption of the final Urban Growth Area by the Metropolitan King County Council. a. Rural land, excluding agriculturally zoned land, may be added to the Urban Growth Area only in exchange for a dedication of permanent open space to the King County Open Space System. The dedication must consist of a minimum of four acres of open space dedicated for every one acre of land added to the Urban Growth Area, calculated in gross acres. The open space land shall be dedicated at the time the application is approved. b. Land added to the Urban Growth Area adopted in the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies must be physically contiguous to the existing Urban Growth Area, and must be able to be served by sewers and other urban services. c. The total area increased as a result of this policy shall not exceed 4,000 acres. d. Development on the land added to the Urban Growth Area under this policy shall be limited to residential development and shall be at a minimum density of four units to the acre. 1. Proposals shall meet King County Comprehensive Plan density and affordable housing goals.

Proposals which add more than 200 acres to the Urban Growth Area shall include affordable housing consistent with King County policies for urban planned developments. As an incentive for additional affordable housing development, the required open space dedication shall be three and a half acres for each acre added to the Urban Growth Area for proposals smaller than 200 acres that provide 30 percent affordable housing units, or for larger developments that exceed 30 percent afforda

-- Mark Stilson (Mark842@Hotmail.com), September 07, 1999.

Seattle always was ruled by Robber Barons and shyster politicians. Although it's probably long out of print, I'd recommend to anyone interested in the history of this area the book "Sons of the Profits." It is a humorous look at Territorial Washington and the kind of people that fashioned the present day city of Seattle. Read it and you'll never look at Yesler Way or Bagley Hall quite the same way. Many local libraries have copies.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 07, 1999.

More tidbits from the King County Groth Plan. I'd seriously recommend that all King County residents download this plan from the metrokc site previously provided and read it in its entirety: LU-40 Each jurisdiction which has designated an Urban Center shall adopt in its comprehensive plan a definition of the Urban Center which specifies the exact geographic boundaries of the Center. All Centers shall be up to one and a half square miles of land. Infrastructure and services shall be planned and financed consistent with the expected rate of growth. For the purposes of achieving a long-range development pattern that will provide a successful mix of uses and densities that will efficiently support high-capacity transit, each Center shall have planned land uses to accommodate: a. A minimum of 15,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center; b. At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre; and c. At a minimum, an average 15 households per gross acre. LU-41 In order to be designated as Urban Centers, jurisdictions shall demonstrate both that an adequate supply of drinking water is available to serve projected growth within the Urban Center and that the jurisdiction is capable of concurrent service to new development. LU-42 Jurisdictions which contain Urban Centers, in conjunction with METRO, shall identify transit station areas and rights-of-way in their comprehensive plan. Station areas shall be sited so that all portions of the Urban Center are within walking distance (one-half mile) of a station. LU-43 In order to reserve rights-of-way and potential station areas for high-capacity transit or transit hubs in the Urban Centers, jurisdictions shall: a. Upon adoption of specific high-capacity transit alignments by METRO, adopt policies to avoid development which would restrict establishment of the high-capacity transit system; b. Preserve rights-of-way controlled by the jurisdiction which are identified for potential transit use; and c. Provide METRO an option to acquire property owned by the jurisdiction. LU-44 To encourage transit use, jurisdictions should establish mechanisms to limit the use of single-occupancy vehicles for commuting purposes. Such mechanisms could include charging for long-term single-occupancy vehicle parking and/or limiting the number of off-street parking spaces for each Urban Center; establishing minimum and maximum parking requirements that limit the use of the single-occupant vehicle; and developing coordinated plans that incorporate Commuter Trip Reduction guidelines. All plans for Urban Centers shall encourage bicycle travel and pedestrian movement.

And you wonder why it's getting MORE congested??

-- Mark Stilson (Mark842@Hotmail.com), September 07, 1999.

"Such mechanisms could include charging for long-term single-occupancy vehicle parking and/or limiting the number of off-street parking spaces for each Urban Center"

And yet, Seattle will use government bonding authority to build a parking garage for Nordstroms. This is one reaso I don't believe it's really about sprawl, but rather about whatever helps Seattle. If the political and economic balance is shifting toward the suburbs, simply outlaw the suburbs. Cute trick.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 07, 1999.

"Here is a case where those who believe this is wrong should work together to influence elected officials about a policy decision. It does not mean that if the decision does not go your way you should just cut the funding for county government. The issue is the decision, not the funding " That's what I might do if I lived in King County. If I didn't live in King County and this was being paid for with MY MVET, I'd just take away the MVET.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 07, 1999.

From a recent PI story regarding Water Taxi service to West Seattle:

http://www.seattle-pi.com/pi/local/taxi04.shtml

The boat ends its third summer demonstration run on Monday -- Labor Day. The results have been impressive: ridership in July up 40 percent (17,041) above the previous July (12,121) when the same boat was operating basically the same hours. The county subsidized the summer service with $250,000. Most passengers used transfers from Metro buses or the waterfront streetcar, rather than paying cash.

Also, the service needs a permanent West Seattle terminal, as Seattle's Seacrest Park dock is no longer available.

Rep. Dow Constantine, D-West Seattle, expects to go after state money for building docks, parking and acquiring a boat.

NOW EXCUSE ME but if you carry 51000 passengers for $250,000 that is a subsidy of $5 a head each way , before looking at capital costs. And they expect to go after state money for that. I understand why Seattle would want to do this (its money brought into their turf from the state. I understand why the AWB would think this is a good thing, they get to build the terminals. I understand why the unions would like it, they get prevailing wage to build the terminals. Im less sure why the rest of us in the state should be expected to subsidize a water taxi for people who have chosen to live in West Seattle. Why are none of the I-695 opponents claiming that kids in the Okanogan will be denied essential healthcare/dental treatment/rabies shots, or whatever to fund a water taxi service to an affluent Seattle neighborhood?? Wheres their consistency

.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 07, 1999.

No Craig, the only ones who will be denied rabies shots are those unfortunate enough to be exposed to rabies in Olympia

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 07, 1999.

Question: If I'm a rural King County resident, why on earth would I vote to keep the MVET? All the transportation resources are going to go to Seattle anyway!

http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/orpp/compplan/1994_98/chapter3.pdf

Outside the Urban Growth Area, improvements to the transportation system by King County and Washington State to serve the Rural Area shall be limited to improvements needed for safety and environmental quality. New public roads and capacity increases for existing roads should be built only within the Urban Growth Area and the Urban Growth Areas for rural cities. This policy does not prohibit major interstate or state highways, or King County roads identified in an adopted transportation plan or policy from crossing the Rural Area, But such links should be designed so they will not create pressure to urbanize adjacent lands.

-- Mark Stilson (Mark842@hotmail.com), September 07, 1999.