— by Walt Corbin —
There appears to be little concern on the part of County leadership in addressing the matter of future planning for the County, as required under the Growth Management Act. Unfortunately many citizens are complacently comfortable in the warm waters of summer, not realizing that the increasing temperature of growth may create an extremely unpleasant outcome.
I have asked the Council members to address the planning issue with meetings on all Islands beginning in September, preceded by information as to projected growth, its impact on Islands resources, and ways that such growth can be mitigated so as not to diminish the quality of island life. Hopefully the Council and planning staff will have meetings that allow working people to come and express their views.
Also of import is the availability of communications between the closed circuit TV in the Council chamber and the libraries on Orcas and Lopez. This would preclude the necessity of people in those communities having to go to Friday Harbor to learn about the planning process and offer their point of view.
Planned growth is sensible and needed, growth with no plan can wreck havoc with our communities. It is important for citizens to express their concerns by attending the hopefully planned meetings and encourage the Council to be more proactive in the planning process.
Walt Corbin:
The 3rd paragraph of your post is a very important point.
Why can`t important meetings that determine the fate of the San Juans not have closed circuit “attendance”? The retired have the time to make the journey from Lopez, Orcas and Waldron to Friday Harbor. Almost an entire day is taken up, thus working folk are precluded from making these meetings.
If planning meetings are held close circuit around noon, then more people can give input, those(young working class) that have more of a long term stake in what is going to be the future of the quality of the San Juans will have input- not just “old duffers” like myself.
I think what you suggested about closed circuit meetings is what is called democracy for all. Not just meetings only a few can participate in.
The Council has already had several meetings addressing comp plan revisions, as has the Planning Commission. All noticed and available to the public. The planning staff are working to gather data as we speak.
I do not know why Council stopped the remote feed from the other islands. There were persistent technical problems years ago when it was done; perhaps those have abated and it’s time for another try.
As for population growth, the population of the County has grown very little according to the people in Olympia, and appears to be on a pace to continue that slow growth.
The issue of growth in any community has always been an interesting consideration. In a free society, the USA, freedom of movement is a fundamental right. American citizens do not carry passports. We are not constrained as to where we travel. Just two days ago, I returned from a visit to Montana. Folks who live there now could decide to move here and experience the way of life that we all enjoy.
The potential density of our communities by way of growth has already been decided. There are sufficient parcels and allowable density for the population of Orcas to be dramatically greater than it is today, perhaps as high as 50,000 folks.
So the endless dialog on planning is in many ways a moot issue. The key element of the discussion is supply and demand. If 500 families want to move here and there are only 300 parcels on which to build, then the price of land rises and the growth slows because people may not be able to afford to live here. Do you remember the housing prices in 2007?
The real issue of planning is with regard to the development of the infrastructure needed to support the allowable growth and resultant population increase. The Eastsound Sewer District, for example, must plan its capital investments to anticipate a certain amount of growth/demand for services over time. The same is true of OPALCO, EWUA, the County/roads and so forth.
So the issue of growth is not the idea that it can be prevented, or slowed by some policy fiat. Rather the availability of affordable property, or not, will determine the pressure on the Eastsound/Orcas Island community, and on the agencies that provide services which then establishes our standard of living.
Always bear in mind when you are expressing concern about growth, that there were likely many folks here before you chose to join the Island community. So they might ask how you came to move here when they might well have been very happy with Eastsound as it was in the ’60s. The population of Orcas in 1974 when I moved here was about 2500. Now, we are told that the population is pushing 6000. How about those apples !!!
Leaving aside for a moment (just a moment) my penchant for always placing human development (with its political battles from both sides of the economic chasm) within the broader context of a sustainable ecology, there are additional non-environmental, pragmatic constraints to growth, too.
While those are some good tasting Washington apples, Ed, I’d add that zoning laws, the legal inability to subdivide land, the limited capacity of infrastructure, the lack of employment and employable industries on island and, finally, being pretty isolated all contribute to maintaining Orcas on somewhat of a slow growth trajectory.
In many ways, we don’t even get to the affordability of land issue when it doesnt exist (pursuant to zonng laws) to subdivide and/or develop which, even of you could build / develop, who would buy given the above additional consideratons? Perhaps, only/mostly those with money due to downsizing from their appreciated home values in their pricier mainland subdivisions (retirees), or those with idle cash to deploy in the vacation investment properties market?
Perhaps there’s some hidden wisdom in our current zoning laws like R-20, R-10 and at least R-5. If there’s a contest, we know darn well as between affordable housing applicants or investors with serious cash who’s likely to prevail. The real loser will be the island’s habitat as it always is in most human affairs where ecology is seen as an abstraction like the biodiversity in wetlands is unseeen by most in how it supports complex living organisms like oursleves. It’s equivalent to people not believing in global warming– in how these issues are pushed aside.
Those of you who call yourselves “progressive” really need to examine what that word means. If progressives want to avoid a dystopian human society (our not too distant future on our current path), I’m perplexed by the scorched earth strategy which isnt a better alternative to the “rich person’s” desire to live in an isolated heaven while the poor live in hopeless, ghettoized, cramped and overly densed communities .
There are alternatives to these two dystopian outcomes. It’s not necessarily a battle between overpopulation/affordable housing vs the natural habitat, or an “elysium world” vs the environment.
There are solutions afoot that dont require sacrificing our planet’s ecological foundations for life, all life, including our own. Will it take deep freezes and serious loss of life to wake everyone up before making sure their poitical agendas are reconciled with primordial pre-requisites forced upon us by that which sustains life? Population, overcrowding are environmental issues, not questions of rich people wanting extra space (as if they’re the only ones who want space to breath–most poor people I know want the same things).
What is being done to regulate the population growth (which is the cause of all strain on the planet’s backbone including our little island’s needed ecological biodiversity) –instead of always trying to accommodate it?
What about placing more land into natural preserves, shielding all remaining wetlands from development, etc. Why dont we increase the (REET) –the SJC land bank tax on purchasing and selling (implement an exit tax) to increase resources to set aside more of the county’s land for ecological preservation. We can aslo chip in privately for this cause. That’s a good way to spend my disposable money. It’s our way of recognizing and responding to the ecological brick wall we’re now facing. Regulate the population (on one end) and find more suitable areas to develop that are faced with the the limited physical restraints of a small island like Orcas (the other end). Then, read up on (and support in practice and funding) the very creative solutions being implemented for the vast majority of our planet’s existing population in our true population centers–the world’s cities.
This isnt a political issue at its heart. And, people in Montana, though equal in rights, represent in terms of our population challenges an infinitesimal degree of scientific relevance. Again, it’s science not politics. We can’t assume political and movement rights wont be withdrawn if we dont get a handle on what’s leading us over the cliff.
For those of you who won’t be here in 20-30 years, think of your children and grandchildren. Don’t rely on your own past life experience–that’s a fallacy for which your progeny will pay dearly.
correction in caps below:
Regulate the population (on one end) and find more suitable areas to develop that AREN’T faced with the limited physical restraints of a small island like Orcas (the other end).