Council decision not made in haste
Published 8:33 pm Sunday, September 5, 2010
By Angela Day
The issue of whether and how to allow construction of new cities in rural areas, known as “fully contained communities,” is contentious to be sure. The Snohomish County Council’s recent decision to ban development of these new cities is one that must have weighted heavily on our elected officials.
When a majority of the council members voted to eliminate fully contained communities from the county’s comprehensive plan, it was not a decision made in haste. Nor was it a decision lacking overwhelming support from citizens and an extensive public process. Overturning this decision without an equivalent rationale and process would suggest to citizens that their participation is not a meaningful contribution to land use decision making within this County, and that policy decisions need not be based on objective technical analysis. The greatest threat to our community is even more significant than the potential impacts that a new city would bring. The more insidious threat is an outcome that subverts an extensive public process.
The council’s decision to ban fully contained communities in rural areas followed the imposition of a temporary moratorium, which was in turn preceded by hearings before the Planning Commission and County Council. The council’s staff also convened a working group of knowledgeable citizens and developer representatives to elicit agreement about how fully contained communities should be designed and regulated. Although not all members were in agreement, the working group proposed amendments that, if ultimately adopted by the council, could have laid the foundation for agreement about future development of new cities.
In many cases, the developer representatives disagreed with each other about how such new developments should be regulated. In nearly all cases, consensus could not be reached among all working group members about transportation mitigation costs and school impact fees, fire and emergency service requirements, access to arterials, job creation and economic development, parks and open space requirements, and environmental protections. This lack of consensus is further evidence that this is a thorny problem which would ultimately require significant tax dollars and staff resources to implement and regulate.
The council’s majority decision was also supported by technical analysis of lessons learned from other jurisdictions and population growth projections. Snohomish County Planning and Development Services (PDS) projects that areas within the existing Urban Growth Area boundaries can accommodate 238,000 more residents by 2025, although only 206,000 are anticipated. Perhaps this fact contributed to the decision of Snohomish County Tomorrow (a working group of local elected officials, PDS representatives and citizens) to endorse a ban of fully contained communities in this county.
The council’s decision followed a ban on fully contained communities enacted by King County elected officials. Development of fully contained communities such as Redmond Ridge in King County have not fulfilled the promise of “full containment.” Nor has Redmond Ridge developed the projected job base and King County is still struggling to pay for the traffic impacts on some previously rural roads. The lesson learned from our neighbor to the south is that either these new cities must be strictly regulated or banned altogether.
The developers who favor keeping open the possibility of building a fully contained community suggest that these cities will be desirable places to live. Design standards making higher densities more attractive, walking trails and other amenities would attract residents. This kind of development does seem desirable, and perhaps merits a continued focus on making our existing urban areas more livable. But the intent here is not to debate the merits or drawbacks of new cities for our county as a whole, but rather to highlight the lengthy debate, public deliberation and analysis that led to the council’s decision.
The foundation for the council’s decision to ban fully contained communities is fairly clear. It is supported by an extensive, albeit failed effort to come to an agreement on development regulations. It is informed by lessons learned from other jurisdictions about the promised benefits and actual consequences of these developments. It is justified by population targets that show existing urban growth areas have the capacity to welcome new citizens to the community. And not least, it is embraced by a nearly overwhelming public support for the ban. Indeed, it was not a decision made lightly.
If this decision is reversed in the absence of en equivalent public and analytic policy making process, we compromise the integrity of our democracy at the local level. Each time this occurs, well-meaning citizens who take the time to participate will understandably be discouraged. It is time to restore confidence in our democratic process by relying on the extensive public deliberation and analysis that gave rise to this outcome.
Angela Day is a doctoral student in the Department of Political Science at the University of Washington. She also serves on the Snohomish County Planning Commission, but these views are expressed here as a private citizen.
