Big Change is coming.
More people. More jobs.
More houses.
And for some Snohomish County landowners, a lot of big money.
The future of nearly $6 billion in property is now in play as county leaders prepare to adopt plans to make room for about 275,000 more people expected here over the next 20 years, according to a computer analysis by The Herald.
| $6 billion: the value of property that could be affected by Snohomish County’s comprehensive plan update.
$708 million: the value of the property chosen by the Snohomish County Council for expanded development – more than 3,000 properties on 188 swaths of land. $285 million in land has been sold in 600 transactions over the past two years within those earmarked areas. 2,800 land deals have been made in the past two years in the areas considered for more development. 655,000: the current population of Snohomish County. 930,000: the anticipated population in 2025. 3 years writing and analyzing the proposed plans. 5 County Council members will make the final decision. Source: County Planning and Development Services; Assessor’s Records. |
County Executive Aaron Reardon has one vision of the future. County Council members are considering others, including 188 potential differences with Reardon’s plan that would scatter more urban-style development across the landscape, while also boosting the number of houses that could be built per acre.
Four straight days of public hearings on the county’s comprehensive plan update begin on Monday. Whatever plans are adopted, the result is expected to pour fuel onto the county’s already superheated real estate market.
“There are a lot of deals out there on land, sitting, waiting to see,” County Councilman John Koster said. “Quite a number of transactions will take place shortly after the comp plan (is adopted), I expect.”
Snohomish County Councilman Jeff Sax said: “$200, $300, $400 million in property will be changing hands in 48 hours” after the plan is adopted.
Meanwhile, market forces appear to be shaping the landscape faster than government’s ability to churn out growth plans.
Since July 1, 2003, about 2,200 land deals with a reported value of more than $888 million have occurred in the parts of the county covered by Reardon’s plan, an analysis of records maintained by the county assessor shows.
Another 600 transactions with a sales value reported at $285 million occurred in areas where the County Council is studying changes.
The deals were struck between landowners and developers even as county planners and elected officials were engaged in studies.
“A lot of the land they are upzoning is already well through the process of being developed,” said Todd Echelbarger, whose land development company owns some of the properties the County Council is considering for denser home construction.
Echelbarger said he decided not to wait for the county to finalize its plans and has sought permits to develop the land under existing zoning. He said he’s not alone, particularly among developers with land in the county’s south end.
“The demand right now is so huge that a lot of the property that has been vacant has been snapped up in the last couple of years and developed at the current, single-family residential zoning,” he said.
Even so, the land-use debate is fueling its share of land speculation, said Tom Hoban, owner and CEO of Coast Real Estate Services. The market is driven by limited land supply, due to the state’s Growth Management Act, which requires development be focused in urban areas.
As a result, some properties are bought and sold quickly, sometimes “flipping” in one day at a profit because values are rising so fast from speculation and demand, he said.
“We’re seeing a lot of that,” Hoban said.
During the next 20 years, the boom might bring an average of 483 new houses, apartments or condos each month – 5,800 per year. That’s a building rate on par with the county’s fast growth from 1990 to 2003, county demographer Stephen Toy said.
Reardon proposes opening up more than 2,700 acres – four square miles – of rural land for urban development. The County Council is considering adding even more – possibly 12 square miles.
Reardon said his plan leans heavily toward economic development and business opportunities.
“Looking at the parcels the County Council has identified, they’re much heavier residential development,” Reardon said.
“It does concern me,” he said. “For every $1 of property tax generated, there’s $1.25 required in services. That type of expansion without a business component perpetuates the diminishing resources dilemma counties find themselves in.”
Although the County Council is considering concentrating more homes in some areas, the majority of the changes it is considering would allow typical suburban subdivisions – not dense condominiums – on what is now rural land.
“People are looking for homes in Snohomish County, they’re not looking for apartments,” Sax said.
For large companies that buy land and speculate, it’s a no-lose situation, Sax said, because people don’t want to live in dense cities.
“Anywhere there’s a color change on the map, somebody’s either going to make money or lose money,” Sax said.
A key debate point in coming weeks will be whether the county can afford to build the roads needed for all those housing and retail developments. The developments allowed in the plans would be short $228 million to $477 million for county road projects in the next 20 years, according to county planners.
Snohomish County is the third most populous in the state, behind King and Pierce counties, and from 2000 to 2005 it was the third fastest-growing county, again behind King and Pierce counties.
County Councilman Dave Gossett’s district stretches from Mountlake Terrace to Bothell and Mill Creek. That area is also ground zero for additional residential development being considered by the council.
“Not because I gave them a list and said do all these things,” Gossett said. “It’s the dynamic of the county and where the unincorporated property is.”
Gossett’s is an almost entirely urban district, and one with the most demand for housing. He said he plans to scrutinize all the proposals, because any change would have repercussions.
Some landowners have petitioned county officials for years to allow urban development on their rural land.
“I have nothing against people getting rich, but there’s got to be a better rationale for expanding the urban growth area,” Gossett said. “In the end, we have to have land capacity that matches our population.”
Reporter Jeff Switzer: 425-339-3452 or jswitzer@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
