Can someone explain to me where this came from and why we put up with such crap.

You must be either an easterner or a californian. If you were from the PNW you would understand.

Funny, but FishPrince isn't as far off as he sounds.

The impetus for the GMA was to prevent the further Californication of WA state and to try and prevent every urban area from looking like Lacey or Lakewood - cities that have no core or "downtown" and consist entirely of a series of strip malls and unplanned housing developments. Another component of GMA is to try and preserve a little bit of the remaining natural environment, an idea that at the individual property owner level is socialist, communist, or much, much worse.

GMA is a compromise. Conservatives maintain that every land owner is free to degrade and destroy all of his land as he sees fit, including the direct and indirect effects of degrading and destroying adjacent or nearby property owned by others, and especially public land. Liberals, on the other hand, insist on preserving all property owned by persons other than themselves, ignoring that their ordinary process of living and working the American Dream also degrades and destroys the environment as well. Liberals also tend to be adamant about preserving every speck of public land, regardless of its utility. Given this context, it's not hard to see how the GMA turned out this way.

Sg

It's because too many bad apples ruined it for everyone else by doing stuff like dumping petroleum wastes out on the ground and letting cows schit in our drinking water...or doing stuff like you see on that Hoarders TV show where rats and pestilence breeds with wild abandon causing sickness and plague upon the population as a whole...

Another issue is water supplies, infrastucure, etc. Will there be enough water? What about sewage? Septic run-off? Power supplies? Enough schools? Roads? Storm run-off? Are the roads & bridges strong enough to handle the traffic? Are the intersections wide enough? Freeway access?
All that stuff needs to be considered before you carve up Grampa's 40 acre farm into 120+ housing units, moto-cross track, shopping mall, epically palatial whorehouse, etc.

Fishprince, take your favorite river and all of the private property along it. How would you feel if it was turned into apartments and condos from the mouth to it's source?

The GMA might work better if there hadn't been political scandals allowing it's bypass for massive housing developments especially by one of the most ardent supporters of private property rights...Quadrant Homes, aka Weyerhauser.

THIS is why we have a GMA and THIS is what laissez faire development policies do to our rivers:

Don't let all that concrete and development fool ya...Even though that river isnt as pretty as, say, an OP stream, it does have fish...



Habitat is way overrated!

LOL... I remember reading that and thinking " WTF this has to be fake".

"You can still have critical areas protection without the growth management act. In fact you do, these are entirely separate laws"

Yes and the property rights advocates abhore them.

"while the guy who liked nature enough to live out in the woods is considered the bad guy and is getting his wealth confiscated by the government for preserving his little patch of land."

Not all rurally designated land owners are upset about it. Don't paint a broad brush. I'm betting most true single family farmers don't want a strip mall or whatever development on the adjacent land. GMA protects other property owners from you.

FP,
I could not have said it any better, it created a lottery for land owners.
I guess I was beening like my late father inlaw and asking a question that I knew the anwser to. My mom went to China on a trip with NAWIC, at one stop in Qingdao they meet with the city planner. They had a map on the wall of the city, it was there "GMA" . My mom was told that is how they control the growth in and around the city. She came home and told me that we have become patterned after a communist country.

Stlhead,

Its called supply and demand if there is no need for that strip mall its not going in.

Doesn't zoning acomplish that also without the gma?

"Its called supply and demand if there is no need for that strip mall its not going in."

So that's why there are empty strip malls, houses and commercial buildings? Plenty of supply right now. Where's the demand? Once the land is gone it's gone regardless of demand.

The GMA, in my opinion, is not being implemented in ways that it was intended. In theory, the act was designed to control and direct growth into areas that are best suited for it. Direct commercial commerce into logical areas that can be easily reached, have adequate infrastructure and will not adversely effect the neighborhood and natural resources. The same can be said about industry, residential, and multifamily resources. It was said to be a compromise to remove the individual rights to develop in par with the rights of the community. Much like zoning laws prohibit certian uses, the growth management act does the same but makes the rules more stable and harder to change.

That said, what I have seen is arbitrary boundaries based on community involvement, area zonings based on area without regards to enviromental constraints or economics, and a push outside the boundary by individuals who hate plats but normally would be happy with a 1/2 acre lot rather than a 50 acre lot.

In general, the Growth Management act should not limit uses that naturally fit into an area. For example, an area with 90% commerical would be zoned to allow the other 10% to be the same. An area on a busy corner would be zoned commercial with surrounding areas having lesser and lesser uses.

The actual implications of the GMA though, are often much different. They are a the direct cause of the very small lots you see, as many areas are zoned so as to require a certian number of lots. In other areas, the lines are jogged to meet requirements, regardless of what the natural and economic boundaries would dictate. They often direct growth into areas that would otherwise be left in a natural state, such as sloped or marginal land or land that is reached by traversing natural buffers. It also creates a situation where land is often developed into large lots or in ways that prevent its future, more natural and economic use.


Overall, think of it as a zoning regulation that is required by the state and created in the way to prevent short term political leanings.

I'm guessing that is why you aren't seeing any beening built, no demand, and those are all subject to zoning laws maybe that is the problem.

No demand is correct so come back Mr. Developer, tear it down and restore the land right?

The GMA was designed to protect/preserve rural areas. That's one reason we have the rack em and pack em in non-rural areas. The other reason is greed. Your zoning laws have been corrupted by developers with greed in mind.

I bought a house with 20 acres, a defunct nursery. It also had a 100 year old house on it, the house was just a shell. At the time I bought it, the property was divisable because of the two homes. I had a better well drilled, was waiting on a permit for the septic, and had already applied for building permit. During the process, the old house caught fire, (most likely kids with matches), two months later I was denied the building permit because I no longer had two dwellings and therefore it was no longer divisable. Now, instead of putting money into the economy by building a home and selling off the properties, Im left with one larger property, and all I can do is farm it. I bought the land, I pay the taxes on it, but some idiot from the city, is "saving my farm".

"At least allow low level development on fives or tens."

Then developers would swoop in, buy up all the farm land and develop urban mansions.

"Some guy sitting on 1/16th of an acre telling you that you can't live on any less than 80 acres."

Can you name this person or is this something you made up?

BD, the neighbors burned your house down? Does that tell you something?

Hell, my neighbors have burned their own house down TWICE! guess they have good insurance.

I have a feeling that most of the people who don't like the act aren't from WA. On the flip-side I would bet that most WA natives are sick and tired of seeing foreigners come in, develop prime timberland into McMansions, destroy the streams, and then complain that the laws aren't like the place they just left.

Even if we didn't have a corrupt government and let communities decide their own fate you are going to have:

Mr. Newby who bought the land as an investment and not to farm
Against
This land has been in my family for 200 years and it's staying in my family
Against
This land has been in my family for 200 years and F them I'm selling to Mr. Newby and taking the money and running.

Your idea that we can all do what we want but we'll all do the right thing is a fantasy. Look at the water rights battles.

I was born in Wa. and this is the dumbest thing ever passed..

Let me say it was written by Maria Cantwell. She moved here in 1983, after growing up in Indiana.. Things that make you go hummm..

KK I feel so welcomed now! As usual great post..

So why do you oppose the act? Is it because you think developers building a sea of houses will fix the economy or because you think people should have a right to do what they want when they want?

Its the amount of money that it takes to comply with something that simple zoning laws would take care of. As FP described if one was politically connected or understood the proccess you can get rich. Now the citys are all looking for land grabs to annex so they can have a bigger circle, because if they are close to any other city they want their UGB as big as possiable.

Thats just how digruntled grass trimmers are trophy.....

But zoning is run by crooks. I thought it was common knowledge.

The GMA isn't?

I have 5 acres in the city, and they don't want me to develop it further. Go figure. (I don't really wish to develop it, but it would have been nice to be able to split off a separate lot.)

This is a city that had 1 new home built in 2010.

Grays Harbor was right there with Mason County, Marsha.

Grays Harbor and Mason County were nearly last on the west side of the state for both the GMA and the CAO (Critical Areas Ordinance). GH was the last one I belive to adopt their CAO. They were on the verge of getting fined by the State and had pending law-suits from environmental groups.

I went to one of the GMA meetings for Mason county. It was an experience to be sure. During the public testimony a lady got up and said " When are you going to get a clothing store in down-town Shelton? I am tired of driving to Wal-Mart to buy new underwear." The scary part was that there were some other people nodding and giving approval. That was far from the only crazy comment I heard.

Interesting that I see major bits of truth being written in this thread by people from both sides of the street.

I'd like Trophymac and FP to describe what will work, but first I'll allege that FP's imperfect lassiez-faire does also result in corruption and its own form of centralized planning, albeit by the wealthiest, most powerful, and greediest industrialists and developers. Local zoning doesn't do what Trophymac alleges either; local councils and commissions routinely waive requirements, in part because said councils are commonly populated with developers, realtors, and business interests that trump environmental protection. And if private property owners actually were conserving and preserving or otherwise protecting private property, no one would have ever deemed it necessary to legislate such protection. So with these qualifications, please describe a viable alternative to GMA that actually achieve the environmental protection goals of GMA. Show your work; the legislature is in session, and remember, a good idea doesn't care who has it.

Sg

Oh, forgot to ask, how do we avoid having the entire state look like Lacey or Lakewood? Or are those actually desirable outcomes for you?

Sg

Sometimes it's impossible to imagine that you're the same FP posting in every thread! Our values about dogs differ completely, but I share that value of representative government, property rights, and the rule of law. However I've been around long enough to see representative government, property rights, and the rule of law all conspire to destroy the air we breathe for a dollar today and not give a damn about tomorrow, because that is precisely what too many "upstanding businessmen" do. So for me those values don't trump a livable planet. Just the opposite. Bureaucracy and regulation is the price we pay to offset the natural inclination, which at the level of the individual, is to degrade and destroy, the evidence of which is all around us. The track record is self-evident and undeniable, and a planet of Laceys and Lakewoods is not an acceptable alternative to me.

Sg

Good questions FP. It's impossible to say what the state would look like without 21 years of GMA, but I think some areas would have been badly developed or over-developed have remained in better condition. But it's not possible to prove one way or the other.

Sg