I was quite amused by the Master Builders’ executive officer Mr. Anderson’s lament, in his Dec. 18 letter, that developers/builders were unfairly accused of putting profit before the environment. It’s like the wolf complaining about getting bad press after eating grandma.
I have several acquaintances who are builders and I have yet to hear them say anything positive about the critical areas ordinances or the set-back restrictions. They see these regulations as an invasion of their property rights and I suspect they would violate the regulations if they thought they could get away with it. I do agree that some builders “go above and beyond” what is required but they are the exception.
The testimony that the Master Builders themselves presented at the critical areas hearings was that the environment and setbacks were inconvenient restrictions designed to prevent builders from providing affordable housing. In other words, builders are hamstrung by having to comply with environmental standards and these standards should be removed.
I personally believe that if it were not for the current regulations (as lax as they are) developers would commit an even worse assault on the environment than they already have. Just look around at how the concepts (loopholes) of “air condos” and “rural cluster developments” have been exploited. Now look at the newly enacted amendment to the land use code (orchestrated by developers) that exempts “Fully Contained Cities” from the Growth Management Act and how the McNaughton Group proposes to exploit this concept on 3,000 acres of farm and forest land in rural north Snohomish County. Does this sound like an industry that takes the environment seriously?
Pam Shoberg
Stanwood
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
