PAM DZAMA | Land-use planning should reflect local preferences

Pam Dzama

Do residents residing in rural Kitsap County do so by desire or design? Research last year during the "Year of the Rural" update to the county's comprehensive land-use plan found that Kitsap County's rural areas were more developed than those in other Washington counties. In fact, the rural population far outnumbered that found in all of the county's cities combined.

Residents interviewed indicated they wanted to "preserve the experience found in relatively undeveloped areas where tranquility, wildlife and intimate communities can still be found." A draft amendment to the comprehensive plan done prior to the research stated, "Rural characteristics include the abundance of trees, access to recreation, views of water and mountains, and a quiet, unregimented atmosphere..."

If these descriptions accurately depict "rural areas," how would urban areas, where population growth is supposed to occur, be described? Most likely, that picture would include higher density, fewer trees, more roads, streets and concrete, increased availability of goods and services and more regimentation. Judging by where they currently live, Kitsap County residents prefer living in less-crowded neighborhoods. It's unfortunate that preference isn't supported by local and state land-use objectives.

Now comes word the county's designated "urban growth areas (UGAs)" might need to be "down-sized," meaning the density would be even greater. Last year the Washington State Appeals Court ruled Kitsap County's definition of "urban" was misapplying the edicts of the Growth Management Act (GMA). As part of the "urban" definition, the county included housing density of at least four houses per acre while less than one house on five acres was considered "rural." According to the court's ruling the density created a "bright line" which shouldn't be applied. It apparently didn't matter that those numbers were decided by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board in 1995 and the county had been operating under that definition since then.

The court found that "rural zoning does not depend on density alone." Preservation of "rural character" must be considered. That's nice, but for whom or what is this nebulous "rural character" designation preserved? Where and when are the preferences of residents taken into consideration?

The county appealed the court's ruling to the Washington State Supreme Court, stating they were "well within the county's broad discretion for land-use planning." According to one of the county's motions "allowing four units per acre would increase the diversity of housing, which is something that local residents said they wanted." The county also indicated the four houses per acre wasn't a "bright line," but was based on local conditions. This month the Supreme Court declined to hear the lawsuit, tacitly endorsing the Appeals Court's decision.

This back-and-forth about "urban" versus "rural" is the result of the Growth Management Act enacted by the Legislature in 1991. I didn't say "passed" by the voters because the voters had soundly rejected Initiative 547, the overreaching initiative to control property usage. Ignoring the will of the people the Legislature enacted the restrictions in I-547 into GMA legislation anyway.

There are consequences to housing if the UGAs are "down-sized." The density will be greater, housing choices fewer and prices higher. It's a simple economic reality. If a product or service is restricted and demand for it is constant or increasing, the price will necessarily increase. This scenario is hardly what the beleaguered housing industry needs, nor is it what most residents of Kitsap County prefer if one takes into consideration where they currently live.

The planners-on-high must use the dense cities of Europe as their models. Cram as many people as possible into the boundaries and fill the countryside with forests and open space. Of course estates exist on acres of land outside the cities, much like the "rural" land-use requirement of one house on five to 20 acres in Kitsap County. Was the GMA really enacted to create a two-tier citizenry where one group lives in crowded conditions while the other is free to enjoy the "undeveloped areas where tranquility and wildlife" exist?

The GMA also spawned unelected and therefore unaccountable bureaucratic boards like the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, responsible for deciding local land-use issues. A statement I quoted from a Seattle Weekly column by Knute Berger six years ago bears repeating:

"The density freaks — who promote urban design models that cater mostly to well-heeled gentrifiers — tout a vision that often leaves families out of the equation ... perhaps a city of singles and empty-nesters is a good thing ... it's also self-defeating for those who chase the image of modern, eco-savvy urbanity. Do we want a city populated by civic Shakers ... a religious sect that didn't believe in breeding?"

No one wants to replicate the sprawl in Southern California. But land-use planning should also reflect the desires of Kitsap County residents, not just the constraints imposed by unaccountable, bureaucratic boards.


  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 8

BeenThere writes:

Thank you, Pam, for a great article. We live in a semi-rural area, where the acreage is not quite one house per "five" acres, but still very rural feeling. We've been zoned UGA and developers are platting all around us with four and five houses per acre. THEY say people want houses on smaller lots so they don't have a big yard to take care of. Duh, why move to the country then? We've been fighting it for three years, but it's a losing battle.

PeterG writes:

You imply that most of Kitsap's population is outside UGAs. That is false. Approximately 60% live within urban areas.

A few questions:

Weren't the appeals (save the one that the Supremes refused to even hear) about keeping a board (the board of county commissioners) accountable?

If you don't like the densities that go with UGAs, why would you support their expansion?

Does the Kitsap County real estate market really support your claim that there are 2 classes of residents , defined by whether they live within our outside UGAs? My own experience (anecdotal) is that housing is a bit cheaper outside the UGA. Wouldn't this price difference indicate market demand for denser housing (notwithstanding the county's survey)?

If it weren't for GMA this county would be much different - and not for the better. I remember when, soon after GMA became law, some county commissioners tried to have the entire county designated an urban area.

dzama#215603 writes:

PeterG, The research done under "the year of the rural" found the majority of residents lived outside the cities, which I said. I didn't indicate they lived outside the UGAs. I live within Kingston's UGA but it's not overly developed. I'm not sure which Commissioners wanted to make the entire Kitsap County a UGA. Were they the same ones who designated all of Bainbridge Island as a UGA, complete with the density requirements? Just wondering.

PeterG writes:

I think Bainbridge incorporated as a city just prior to GMA. Cities were designated UGAs by default. I agree about Kingston. Silverdale is a sprawling unincorporated UGA that probably accounts for much of the County's unincorporated population.

Tardygoes writes:

Growth Management sounds business-like to me. Kitsap County, amongst the Puget Sound counties,is the smallest and nearly the most densely-populated. It has deficiencies in water availability, in infrastructure options, in tax base growth opportunites, for examples.

But the progress of the planning has not been done outside the public purview. It may be that Pam D. was not queried as to her wishes, but others spoke in her interests (or theirs,eh).

Pam introduced a neighbor in a recent column who cried out for succor upon finding herself at the bottom of a hill and prevented from urban ease of access to her local grocery.

Perhaps Pam has noticed the recent interest on the part of a Michigan company with plans tgo increase Poulsbo's population by 1K+. If that growth came to her neighborhood, Kingston might change from a hamlet to a village with attendant urban niceties, perhaps even reducing her costs of living as an economy of scale.

But no, she cries "I vant to be rural".

beachrat12 writes:

Urban Growth Management, whether or not we agree philosophically with the concept, will become more and more necessary as our population increases.

Not to say I like being told what I can or can't do with my land, but it is an unavoidable fact.

The best that we can hope for is a rational approach that addresses our growing and evolving needs while respecting the desires of the people to the maximum level possible.

shameless writes:

I made the mistake of buying into a planned community with covenants. After dealing with the ridiculous Board, their desire for a mandatory paving project and covenants that restricted how I wanted to use the property, I simply dumped it and moved.

The GMA is just a bigger version of a community Board, which really is just a bunch of snobby, nosey neighbors from Bellevue getting into everyone else's business. They moved from Bellevue to "get rural", then they start to try and control it like the "old country".

Indianola has a pretty high density per acre, but keeps all the big ol' trees and rural feel. No one had to tell us to do that. It is desirable.

Been on 3, 5 and 20 acre spreads. No problem there either. People tend to take care of their land and their place. All the elites are just control freaks who don't want to look at their neighbors blue tarps and car collection.

Ahumanbeing writes:

The idea behind Growth Management is good because we deal in a world where we are now aware of the environmental and social problems associated with unchecked growth. Suburban sprawl has created many problems and having more McCormick Woods all over Kitsap like in Snohomish and King Counties would be terrible.

In Kitsap the GMA has been confusing everyone. It's gone back and forth with different people in charge. Something needs to be found that's a hybrid between Urban and Rural like allowing clustering. Or providing public transit to reduce traffic and allow far-flung parts of the county to be accessible instead of creating more suburbs and sprawl.
