Mann
The moratorium is designed to allow the county to work toward different regulations in the watershed to protect that drinking water source, but they’ve been very, very, very slow in coming.
The moratorium, which was supposed to be temporary, has been extended numerous times, to the chagrin of nearly all interested parties, whether it be those who don’t want the ban or those who would like a set of regulations to protect the lake through, say, downzones.
Last night, in a surprise move, the council voted to reject a permanent ban. One such council person who voted for it, another shocker, was County Councilman Ken Mann, considered to be on the losing end these days of many votes due to a conservative majority on the council.
But in a 6-1 vote, Mann helped reject the permanent ban.
*UPDATE* – Here’s Jared’s full story on the meeting last night.
It clearly was a shocking vote to some of his supporters, too, because on his blog this evening, Mann has decided to defend his actions (noting the anger from some) and says he wants to work toward a transfer of development rights program because he doesn’t want to use the “blunt instrument of a downzone.”
The problem with a TDR program? They don’t appear to be working very well. Or, rather, at all.
In a March 25, 2009 article by Growth & Transportation reporter Jared Paben wrote an article detailing two separate reports from both Bellingham and Whatcom County that stated not only has the city’s current TDR program not worked for Lake Whatcom watershed protection, if the county wanted to expand a program to protect agricultural lands, it likely wouldn’t be successful.
Even more glaring, even if a program were set up, it likely wouldn’t be used in an effective manner for the next decade.
A big deal as the county, city and Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District try to figure out how exactly to meet what will be severely-stringent mandates on reducing oxygen-choking phosphorous levels in the impaired water body. Not in 10 years, but now.
I can’t provide you with a direct link, because the article is more than a year old, so I’ll put it below the fold.
But Mann is committing to trying to do something effective, though he doesn’t have much detail yet.
One other issue with that, however, is Mann being in the minority on the council right now.
Take, for instance, a call to increase the level of detail in how the legislative body makes appointments to the council and boards and commissions. Mann said he wanted to increase transparency, so he wanted applications in two weeks before the council ever made a vote on them. He wanted to stop a council member nominated to fill a vacancy from being able to vote during the whole selection process, too.
After just the first meeting to hash out the details of the proposal, Mann was already sitting through committee meetings during a process that he clearly was no longer in control of (though he started it).
Since then, nearly none of his original proposal remains.
Would that happen to any TDR proposal he offers up?
Time will tell, but Mann very obviously has gotten at least some of his constituents mad at him, and mad enough he decided to respond on his blog.
This should be interesting.
Here’s Jared’s full story from 2009:
Under existing law, developers can transfer development rights from the Lake Whatcom watershed into urban areas north of Bellingham, but a new report from the city says the law hasn’t worked.
And a separate Whatcom County report says that if county government expanded the program to include the endangered agricultural lands, it probably wouldn’t be successful.
Meanwhile, city planners will soon propose law changes aimed at accomplishing the same thing as the existing ” transfer of development rights ” law. Instead of transferring rights , they’ll sell development rights in urban growth areas and use the money to buy watershed land or development rights .
The city’s goal is to curb development in the watershed that is damaging the quality of Lake Whatcom, drinking water source for the city’s residents.
EXISTING LAW
The law currently allows owners of land in the Lake Whatcom watershed to sell the right to build houses to developers, who can then take those rights and build more homes in certain areas of Bellingham’s unincorporated urban growth area. But only one developer, Ralph Black, has ever done it, and he said he wouldn’t do it again.
According to the city’s report, by consultant Property Counselors, the extra development rights don’t have much or any value to developers, so they’d have to get a lot of rights for the purchase of one valuable watershed development right , for example.
Inside city limits, the recently annexed King Mountain neighborhood has the biggest single area that’s designated for using transferred development rights , city planner Greg Aucutt said. Most of the areas already allow for six homes per acre, which is where the market is, he said.
CAUSES OF PROBLEMS
The transferred rights lack value for the following reasons, according to the Property Counselors’ report:
— Developers in Bellingham’s urban growth area aren’t building as many homes as they are allowed to anyway. A study of 11 housing projects showed they were building only 43 percent of the number of homes zoning outright allows. Black said wetlands and other environmental constraints make it hard to even build as many homes as zoning allows.
— Uncertainty for developers. Black transferred development rights from his own watershed land to land he owned near East Bakerview and Irongate roads. After he signed papers to reduce development potential on his watershed land, he still had to face City Council approval to use the rights as part of the Stonecrest project, and neighbors fought back.
“Most developers are skeptical about the value of TDRs primarily because of uncertainty about exactly how it would work and whether higher density projects could ultimately be approved,” the consultant wrote.
“I believe it will not work without fundamental changes,” Black said. Developers need to be able to use the transferred rights if they meet certain predetermined conditions, not based on public opinion and the council’s approval.
AG LAND PROTECTIONS
Whatcom County is considering allowing transfers from agricultural lands to help meet its goal of preserving at least 100,000 acres of agricultural land, according to a new report by county planners.
But the chances of it working are low for many reasons, including that the value of development rights to developers is so low.
Also, developers may be able to develop more densely under law by doing things like providing affordable housing, child-care facilities or open space, according to the report.
CITY PLANS CHANGES
The city’s report recommended setting up a program because, while it might not be used in the next decade, it could become useful later when developable land becomes rarer.
In April, city planners expect to bring the Planning Commission a draft new law that would allow developers to buy outright from the city the right to build more housing or larger buildings in certain areas, Aucutt said. Prices would be set by the council.
The city would then take that money and buy land or development rights in the watershed, he said.
Sam, that has to be your most inaccurate headline ever! There was no vote on ending the moratorium. Nobody has even suggested that. The vote was whether to downzone, permanently, the affected areas. The moratorium is still in effect… Sheesh!
Thanks Sam for focusing attention on last nights vote; and for re-posting Jared’s article which underscores the failed history of programs that pretend to solve problems they lack any capacity to address.
The reason Mann’s principal constituency is upset has less to do with his making a stupid vote. We all know he hasn’t got the stomach for strong action. And it is no surprise that he would reach for a fig leaf like he has to hide his real lack.
Ken will do the right thing if it isn’t too painful. And it pains him to tell affluent and influencial people they can’t have their way. So let’s forgive him and move on.
But what may not be forgivable is his naive belief that in order to make a deal with Crawford and company he can not stand for the principal that the public’s interest in a healthy lake trumps private interests in a full build out of the watershed.
Ken doesn’t need to figure out where his bread is buttered, he doesn’t need to resolve inconsistencies in maps that say where the watershed is, he doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel and watch it get away from him.
He needs to simply see what is the greater good for the greatest number and make their interests his first priority. Crawford and his cronies in the building industry and the land abuse bar have little sway south of the Chuckanut mountains.
Events will soon put them in proper perspective and it’s sad to see Ken Mann standing with them. First things first. Protect the lake.
What a huge disappointment Ken Mann has turned out to be. I thought he would be a fighter on behalf of the environment, smarter growth and have the fortitude to stand up to Sam and his bulldoze and pave pals. Looks like I was wrong.
Councilman, it’s late, my apologies. I hope this new headline meets your satisfaction.
No worries, Sam. Keep up the good work!
Keep an eye on Mann. He may become the conservatives go to guy.
Everything I had heard/read from Ken Mann suggested that he would be a “blue dog” style democrat (with progressive tendencies). I was concerned that was all for show (literally when he was co-hosting on KGMI) but he’s leading exactly as one who has listened to him on the air as well as followed his campaign would expect. Thanks for being consistent, Mr. Mann, and showing that all you said before your election was not just an act.
I find the approach of seeking some sort of middle ground for recognizing property rights and balancing those rights with the present reality a bit refreshing. I agree with Ken that this one vote is not going to overturn any apple carts and maybe will cause some to tidy up their displays. The path we’ve been on doesn’t seem to be getting it done.
That said we don’t need any more neighborhoods or multi-home developments in the watershed.
Those looking to TDR’s or something similar to protect their nut had better stop hoping for a total route, get real, and work to make the TDR model successful–rather than using it to procrastinate and stall. The writing is on the wall…..
An effective TDR program would be a huge salve for anyone impacted by a down zone. But every opportunity for creating effective receiving areas has been passed by. The King Mountain area was recently annexed by the City of Bellingham. But there is no interlocal agreement between the City and the County on TDRs for up zones and the city controls the up zoning as up zones happen only after annexation.
I would point out that the current moratorium calls out for considering TDRs. But it is clear that TDRs are not a particularly useful tool. The fact is we have far too much development potential in our rural resource lands. TDRs and purchase of development rights (PDRs) may help, but if we are to use them at all we better be strategic about it.
The moratorium was put in place in order to have time to review UGA boundaries in the watershed, zoning within the UGA boundaries and the LAMIRDs (clumps of urban development within otherwise rural areas). At the time in 2005 it was anticipated that the UGA issue in the watershed and LAMIRD issue in the watershed would be resolved within couple of years. The UGA issue took 4 years and the Council has yet to decide LAMIRD issue. The watershed boundary issue that Mr. Mann and other council members have been discussing is not a relevant issue. Regardless of the boundary line, the area in question is outside of any reasonable interpretation of a LAMIRD.
One final point is on fairness. The County already down zoned significant areas of the watershed to one home per five acres. The initial change took place in 2002 and involved something like 2,000 potential new lots. An addition down zone was passed within the City UGA areas by shrinking the UGAs and by down zoning within the remaining UGAs. There was no compensation via TDRs for those zoning changes. At a certain point I think compensation is the right thing to do such as less than one home per 5 acres. Another point of fairness is the cost to tax payers and water rate payers to fix the problems associated with development associated damage to the lake.
While I may lack the depth of understanding Dan McShane brings to the topic of TDR programs, nonetheless I would like to contribute my thoughts.
Let’s cut to the chase here. Why don’t these transfer programs work? Because for them to work, someone has to pay; and in the end nobody wants to pay and the county or city governments haven’t the political will to make someone pay…that is someone besides taxpayers.
Take the case in point. Some property owners are in a predicament because if they are allowed to build out in order to realize the profits of their investment they will damage the water supply, and violate the rights of Bellingham citizens who have a right to the public waters in the lake.
In fact, if the opportunity to build is taken away, they may not just lose the potential profit, they may even see the value of the underlying property become less than the investment they made based on the speculative assumption on what they might build.
So, the first suggestion is make someone else pay for their losses or lost profits. Say someone who wants to develop in an area that would otherwise not cause any damage and ultimately the future occupant of that dwelling.
But, faced with the “tax” that would place on the dwellings to be built, those developers will cry and lobby for exemption.
The TDR concept seems so wonderful, like a free lunch, when in fact it really turns into a clever game of everyone trying to duck paying the bill.
In the end, the least influential, the most poorly represented, will get stuck with the bill, the ordinary citizens of Bellingham and Whatcom county whose taxes or water bills will go up.
So, let our elected representatives be honest about this. Who’s going to pay the bill? Quit telling us there will be a free lunch. Growth is a taxing activity. Who are you going to sweat it out of?
‘Planning’ owes its popularity largely to the fact that everybody desires, of course, that we should handle our common problems with as much foresight as possible.
The question is whether we should create conditions under which the knowledge and initiative of individuals are given the best scope so that they can plan most successfully; or whether we should direct and organize all economic activities according to a ‘blueprint’, that is, ‘consciously direct the resources of society to conform to the planners’ particular views of who should have what’.
….competition as superior not only because in most circumstances it is the most efficient method known but because it is the only method which does not require the coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority.
It dispenses with the need for ‘conscious social control’ and gives individuals a chance to decide whether the prospects of a particular occupation are sufficient to compensate for the disadvantages
connected with it.
http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
While Ken is busying playing with his TDR program, Sam Crawford and Ward Nelson will be waiting for the moratorium to expire. It is so much nicer to just let it expire than to have to take an affirmative stance against protecting Lake Whatcom. After the moratorium expires, all the watershed landowners will be lined up, permits in hand, including of course, expired periods from 2009, to vest their rights to subdivide. This will only take a few months, and after that, what is even the point of having a downzone? The County will now be required to buy back the property rights that it just freely gifted to private land owners.
From me previous link:
When the government has to decide how many pigs are to be raised or how many buses are to run, … these decisions cannot be settled for long periods in advance. They depend inevitably on the circumstances of the moment, and in making such decisions it will always be necessary to balance, one against the other, the interests of various persons and groups.
In the end somebody’s views will have to decide whose interests are more important, and these views must become part of the law of the land.
The state ceases to be a piece of utilitarian machinery intended to help individuals in the fullest development of their individual personality and becomes an institution which deliberately
discriminates between particular needs of different people, and allows one man to do what another must be prevented from doing. It must lay down by a legal rule how well off particular people shall
be and what different people are to be allowed to have…..
isn’t interesting how history just keeps repeating itself over and over again? There may be different questions but the right answers never change!!!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Left out the it!
Isn’t it interesting how history just keeps repeating itself over and over again? There may be different questions but the right answers never change!!!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!