|
|
|
IN THIS ISSUE |
|
|
SAVE THE DATE!
|
|
|
PLANNING NORTHWEST
FEATURED SPONSORS |
|
|
PLANNING NORTHWEST
VOLUME XIX, ISSUE 5 |
|
|
|
IS GROWTH MANAGEMENT TO BLAME FOR HOUSING PRICES?
WHY SHOULD PLANNERS WORK ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
AND WHAT CAN PLANNERS DO ABOUT IT?
Mike Stanger
Judith Stoloff
Just over ten years into implementation, questions about GMA need to be addressed. Those who feel disadvantaged by growth management blame GMA for high housing prices.
Unfortunately, there has been more heat than light shed on this issue. We’ll answer a few key questions with solid facts, and point you to the assembled research. In the end, we show that there are many good arguments why growth management is not the enemy of housing affordability. We also urge planners to remain vigilant in forging solutions to high housing costs, and propose that we talk about this more at the next state conference and thereafter.
To make our case, we offer data that goes deeper than that offered by the housing industry and the popular press. Some of it is statewide, and some is specific to Snohomish County or our federally designated metropolitan statistical area, which includes King and Island counties. Because Snohomish County shares an expanding regional housing market with King and Pierce counties, and many other characteristics with other Puget Sound markets, we believe that this data is also relevant to those counties.
- Why does housing seem so expensive? Housing in Washington now costs about 4.4 times median household income versus 3.6 times median income in 1999.1 Cost burden is certainly increasing: in Snohomish County, the percentage of low- and moderate-income households spending more than 30% of their incomes on housing rose from 21% in 1990 to 25% in 2000.
- Has housing inflation been as bad as it seems? If we compare Washington to other states, we find that our house price appreciation is lower than we are led to believe. The most recent House Price Index (HPI), a measure of house price appreciation from same-house resales and refinanced mortgages, indicates that Washington is ranked 20th, at 54.04% over the past five years.2 The U.S. average was 57.68%. The fact is that housing is expensive, and rapidly gotten more expensive, everywhere that is attractive to live and work.
- Are houses less affordable in Washington than elsewhere? More than some places; less than others. The Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) of the National Association of Home Builders measures the share of homes sold in an area that would have been affordable to a family earning the median income of that area. By the HOI, the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett region had a score of 50.8% in the first quarter of 2005. The national average was 56.8%, and our region ranked 55th least affordable out of all 158 metropolitan areas in the survey. We are in the upper third, but not among the least affordable.
Furthermore, homeownership is rising instead of declining. Home ownership rates in Washington increased throughout the 1990s and have stayed high at about 64% since 2000.3 The national average in 2004 was 69%.4
- How are housing costs related to GMA? One immense difficulty with research on this question is that it cannot claim to separate the causes from the effects. Does growth management cause prices to rise, or does rapid development lead to higher prices and then attempt to manage that growth? We offer a reminder that growth management is a response to unacceptable impacts from growth: traffic congestion, overcrowded schools, building on open space.
A second problem is that measurements of growth management (as the “independent variable”) are difficult to compare across jurisdictions. By what measure do we compare the growth management rules of Washington and Florida, for example? Third, the academic research is frequently misunderstood or misused. Recent papers by Glaeser and Gyourko5 for example, use the time from application to building permit to measure restrictiveness of land use regulation, and found that stricter regulations are associated with higher prices. But some have erroneously used this research to implicate growth management, a claim the authors do not make.
Returning to the HOI, Reno (27th) and Las Vegas (29th) were the least affordable metropolitan areas among regions not located on the west or east coast; neither has growth management. Similarly, the HPI ranks Washington and its metropolitan regions favorably: Out of 256 metro areas, Olympia ranked 37th, Bellingham 46th, Tacoma 51st, Spokane 56th, and Seattle 68th. Arizona cities, meanwhile, without growth management, had four of the top 15 highest price appreciation rates. Clearly, market factors more powerful than growth management are acting on house prices.
- Timing of increases relative to GMA So what do we know about how price changes relate to GMA? While we are far from the total answer, research developed by the demography group at Snohomish County Planning and Development Services shows that “real” housing costs in the Seattle region rose more sharply before GMA.
Yes, house prices have risen faster than incomes—but that has been true ever since the 1960s. In Snohomish County, for example, the ratio dropped from 2.2 in 1960 to 1.9 in 1970, then increased to 3.25 in 1980, 3.28 in 1990, and 3.5 in 2000.
Another measure of house price inflation, the shelter component of the Consumer Price Index, was higher in the ten years before GMA implementation than the first ten years after implementation. In a way, these results are more informative than house prices alone, because they include rents along with mortgage costs. As shown in the chart below, the average annual shelter inflation in the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton metropolitan area (King, Snohomish, Pierce, Kitsap, Thurston, and Island counties) was 4.4% from 1985-1994, and 2.9% from 1995-2004.
Click here for chart. Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics
In further support, the HPI has increased slightly less since 1995 (3.4%) than in the ten years before GMA implementation (3.5%) in the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett region (King, Snohomish, and Island counties).
Click here for chart. Source: US Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
How could housing costs possibly rise more slowly under growth management than before it? The most thorough literature review of the subject, performed by Nelson, et al.,6 concludes that growth controls that restrict growth, such as permit caps, urban service boundaries, and other local measures as used in California, do in fact restrict supply and drive up prices; but the evidence in Oregon, which has the most growth management experience, while less conclusive, suggests that the capacity for growth within the urban growth boundary has been sufficient to meet growth demands and avoid the compounding effect on house prices.
Nelson, et al. had no Washington studies to review, but the implication is that as long as GMA is implemented in a way that accommodates growth by providing for sufficient housing units, the size of the urban growth area will not affect housing costs directly.
This, of course, brings the discussion to the effectiveness of Washington’s Buildable Lands program, which deserves its own article. Unable to prove that house prices are rising extraordinarily in King or Snohomish counties, growth management critics are attacking Buildable Lands to show that urban growth areas lack development capacity. So far, state courts have upheld hearings board decisions that Buildable Lands has been performed properly and demonstrate that the UGAs do have sufficient capacity.
- If not GMA, then what’s driving up house prices? To prove that growth management, or urban growth areas, or any other element caused house prices to rise, one must eliminate other factors as possible causes. But as we know, many other circumstances have affected housing costs over the past two decades.
Consider these reasons for increased housing demand:
- Economic growth. Desirable places, where there are jobs, induce greater demand for housing and higher prices.
- Higher household incomes, due to more working people per household. Lenders are able to qualify households for higher priced housing based on more than one earner. (In the meantime incomes of lower and middle income earners have remained stagnant in many cases.)
- Low interest rates. Even with recent interest rate rises, we have experienced a long run of below average mortgage rates.
- Looser underwriting standards. Lenders allow housing to cost a larger multiplier of household income than formerly. They allow housing to cost more than 30% of income in some cases. And they count more income as the basis for underwriting—rather than allow for one wage earner to take off time for maternity leave, etc.
- More flexible loan instruments. There are many adjustable rate, interest-only loans available, and they have gained wide usage. This increases the amount of debt households can carry (at least until the notes come due).
- Speculation, driven by all of the above, plus poor stock market performance and changes to capital gains tax laws. Incredible as it sounds, the National Association of Realtors report that “the market share of second homes rose from 36.0 percent of transactions in 2004 to 39.9 percent in 2005.”7
CTED, in its fact sheet on Affordable Housing, lists other major factors, on the supply side:
- Lumber price rises. Lumber is an essential element of house construction.
- Doubling of average size of housing units over the past 40 years.
- Lot size increases—doubling from +/- 4,000 square feet to +/- 8,000 sq. ft
- Stricter building codes to ensure safety and energy efficiency. One type of regulation that costs money.
- Longer times to get building permits in high-growth communities. Often the increase in scale takes some reorganization to manage it efficiently. This takes time.
- Have we been misinformed? Planners should know that some measures of house price appreciation used in the popular press are misleading. Most are aware, for example, that median house prices are affected by the ever-increasing size of newer housing. Comparing prices in 2005 to those of 1995 or 1985, therefore, is invalid unless size (i.e. quality) is controlled (as the HPI attempts to do). Another measure with questionable reliability is the Housing Affordability Index (HAI), which claims to assess the ability of median income households to buy median priced houses. The assumptions used in the HAI (e.g. downpayment, percentage of income) are outdated. In the case of the so-called first-time buyers index, they even seem unfair; the first-time buyer HAI reports the 70th percentile of income as a percentage of the 85th percentile of house prices. The HAI is seldom used in peer-reviewed academic publications. Yet the major newspapers rely on both raw house prices and the HAI to tell us what the market is doing.
Why should planners work on affordable housing?
A wide range of housing opportunities is essential for a healthy community, not to mention that it is a GMA goal and requirement. Decent housing is necessary for a community to attract and keep jobs and quality workers. People and communities need safe, affordable housing as a base for healthy productive lives. And of course, our comprehensive plans must make adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.8
And what can planners do about it?
Planners need to see housing as more than a land use and their responsibilities need to extend beyond finding enough land to accommodate dwelling units. But local government planners here in Washington state and elsewhere have limited tools at their disposal to provide affordable housing.
- General fund budgets are strapped by the demands of growth
- Federal housing programs are cutting back
- State housing trust fund dollars are available; they save a portion for rural areas. They take quite a bit of administration, and smaller cities do not have the staff to develop grants and administer them.
- Tax increment financing is also difficult to administer, and difficult to gain approval.
Local governments need not have big budgets, however, to accommodate affordable housing for low/moderate-income households. Inclusionary zoning has gained a toe-hold in the Seattle region, with many positive results in the short term. On the other hand, perhaps the most direct approach would be to be less exclusionary. Glaeser and Gyourko, mentioned earlier, and dozens of others, have shown over the years that conventional zoning and subdivision standards have a significant impact on housing prices—in fact, that is what they were designed to do. So the more planners that can convince their communities to allow more density, less expensive housing types, less costly development, and so forth, will go a long way toward adding affordable housing.
One extra-local model which works in East King County deserves more consideration and adoption where feasible. A Regional Coalition on Housing (ARCH) began as a part of Bellevue city government and now receives support from 16 communities and King County. ARCH was created to preserve and increase the supply of housing for low and moderate income households in East King County.
Under this subregional program, jurisdictions contribute to a fund and ARCH coordinates with local non-profit developers to build various types of affordable housing projects throughout the County. ARCH helps local jurisdictions prepare the regional component of their housing elements to coordinate those efforts. ARCH assists households in finding affordable rental and ownership housing, provides financial support to groups creating housing affordable to low and moderate income households, and assists member governments in developing housing policies.
Other counties may have tried a similar approach; we have not heard about their results. It is worth discussion whether we could modify the comprehensive planning process to prepare regional or countywide housing elements. This would be similar to what many counties do with transportation planning. The jurisdictions could pool their expertise and cooperate on the development of policies and funding mechanisms that would enhance current limited efforts. Such an approach would need to include a robust community involvement and education program, so that communities could gain support from residents about the value of affordable housing.
Conclusions
In summary, housing costs are more burdensome than in the past, but the best evidence we have suggests that growth management (in particular, urban growth boundaries) has not worsened that burden. Demand has been unusually high due in large part to factors that have made buying houses (and extra houses) extraordinarily easy for middle- and upper-income households. Supply is always an issue, but as long as cities and counties allow sufficient densities and mixtures of housing types, we can meet the demand for low-cost housing as well as high-cost housing. Planners who assert their expertise in this area can help ensure that innovation is not snuffed out by “conventional wisdom,” and that the GMA is strengthened and not weakened.
As a first step in this discussion, we are organizing a session at the fall APA conference to be a forum for local planners to learn and share their experiences with affordable housing. Please contact us between now and the conference to shape this session into a productive starting point for housing planning in Washington State.
Mike Stanger and Judith Stoloff, FAICP, are practicing planners in Washington. The views expressed here are their own and not necessarily those of their employers.
1Median household income from Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM), Oct. 2005; house prices from Washington Center for Real Estate Research (WSCRER), Apr. 2006.
2Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), period ended December 21, 2005, Mar. 2006.
3U.S. Bureau of the Census, Apr. 2006.
4Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, 2005.
5Harvard Institute of Economic Research, 2005.
6Nelson, A.C., R. Pendall, C.J. Dawkins, and G.J. Knaap. 2002. The link between growth management and housing affordability: the academic evidence. The Brookings Institution. Online at http://www.brookings.edu/metro/publications/growthmanagexsum.htm.
7Second home sales hit another record in 2005; market share rises. Online at http://www.realtor.org/publicaffairsweb.nsf/pages/secondhomesales05.
8RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d).
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BROWN BAG RECAP
Allan Johnson, Housing Planner Housing and Community Development
The Mercer Island City Council Chambers were the site of a recent half-day discussion on housing affordability. This discussion occurred on March 1st and was the last of the “Brown Bag Lunch” series for spring 2006.
The program was divided into four one hour segments beginning with a presentation by Arthur Sullivan from ARCH (A Regional Coalition for Housing). This segment concentrated on tips for handling community discussions about affordable housing issues and projects. Arthur has developed a point of view after many years of discussions with communities about these issues that there is no such thing as NIMBY per se. Arthur’s perspective is that the process of integrating affordable housing into communities primarily depends upon getting to know and then appropriately and adequately responding to the resident’s fundamental values such as safety, schools and traffic. These will often be reflected as concerns about affordable housing but really they are an indication about what needs to be addressed to properly incorporate affordable housing into the community.
Following this discussion, the next portion of the program centered on the planning and regulatory environment and what planners can do to increase housing choice and affordability. Rob Odle, the Acting Planning Director for the City of Redmond, talked about a variety of measures that have been recently implemented there such as cottage housing demonstration projects, fee waivers and the City’s inclusionary affordable housing requirements in the Downtown and several neighborhoods.
Rick Hooper, from the City of Seattle Office of Housing, spoke next on the successes of the Seattle’s Multi-Family Tax Exemption Program. Rick also addressed the current evaluation of the housing market and regulations in downtown Seattle and efforts to support affordable housing development through changes to the zoning code.
Allan Johnson, of the King County Housing and Community Development Program highlighted a range of housing opportunities created through King County’s surplus property program such as the Greenbrier Heights project in Woodinville and the Tashiro Kaplan Artist Lofts in Pioneer Square. Allan indicated a real strength of this tool was the ability to tailor an RFP that matched the local neighborhood’s affordable housing needs and desires.
A conclusion of this discussion was that when incentives, such as density bonus, fee waivers and surplus property initiatives can be combined within one project it often has better results than when just one incentive is used independently. Greenbrier Heights, in Woodinville, was highlighted as an example of this convergence of a variety of incentives to create an outstanding final result.
The Housing Partnership’s Mike Luis provided a thought provoking discussion about what role planning has in limiting housing choice and consequently compromising housing affordability. Mike talked about the Atlanta area and its relatively affordable housing in addition to minimal growth restrictions and postulated that the two were related. This prompted a lively discussion amongst attendees.
Linda Hall from the St. Andrew’s Housing Group talked about the development process from the perspective of a non-profit developer. In particular she highlighted the complications presented by time and difficulty it takes to obtain the multiple subsidies needed to support a non-profit housing project and how each one of these funding sources has its own unique set of deadlines for development and occupancy. As a result, non-profit projects often have to proceed through the permitting process in a very different manner than private sector projects.
Finally, a panel composed of Steve Walker from the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, Marquis Frank of the King County Housing Finance Program and Carla Okigwe, the Executive Director of the Housing Development Consortium, spoke about the various different funding sources that support affordable housing projects and what cities and staff can do to help support potential projects in their community through the process of securing these various funds.
Approximately 25 people attended the session and, given the lively discussion and positive feedback from many attendees, will likely be follow up discussions on these topics at a future event.
USING GIS AS A TOOL TO PROTECT PUGET SOUND
How planners can use geographic information systems to measure intrinsic landscape features to allow community leaders to see them as a diminishing resource.
Christopher L. Overdorf, Jones & Jones
The development of geographic information systems (GIS) has been crucial to conservation planning efforts and the protection of natural resources and habitats in the United States. The systems’ ability to assemble, analyze and distribute geospatial information has allowed practically all public agencies and non-governmental organizations to begin working with stakeholders to strategically protect our finite, yet diminishing resources.
However, the intrinsic landscape formations and features that define each local region are not being recognized. As a consequence, people are not making a connection with their signature landscapes nor discussing how to protect them. This is a serious matter; for it is the connection people have to the landscape that has historically proven to be the synthesis for the environmental movement.
Only by understanding the geography can we identify the inherent features of the landscape. Even this country’s earliest planners recognized the role of identifying geographical features as essential to the protection of our most celebrated landscapes.
Natural Bridge, a 215-foot-tall stone bridge in Virginia once considered a natural wonder of the new world, was used by Thomas Jefferson to promote the natural beauty of our country and inspire politicians, writers and artists.
The 1888 plan for the park systems of Minneapolis and St. Paul proposed by H.W.S. Cleveland, a pioneer of American city planning, was based on the identification of landscape formations, such as the ring of glacial pothole lakes in the Minnehaha watershed, that could serve as an armature around which to design the city and shape growth.
O.C. Simonds and Jens Jensen, leading landscape architects of the early 20th century, argued that planning will be successful only by understanding, revealing and preserving landscape forms and scenery that reflects the local and regional character of a place.
Missing the intrinsic landscape
While typical scientific analysis of ecosystems helps people understand how the systems behave and which factors contribute to their health, it doesn’t give us a complete understanding of regional landscapes’ inherent aesthetics.
When analyzing Puget Sound as a whole, many techniques fail to recognize that the Puget Sound basin is a collection of smaller landscapes, each with a unique set of intrinsic landscape features. Many science-based ecological planning models fall short in reflecting the importance of these individual landscapes.
When Puget Sound is further analyzed in terms of its biodiversity, the emphasis is given to the San Juan Islands while the issues faced by other areas, such as the South Sound and Hood Canal, go unrecognized. If we are to truly protect Puget Sound, we need to integrate intrinsic landscape analysis into the equation. Identifying landscape characteristics — which define a subregion’s formations of aesthetic significance, such as coves, river mouths, lagoons, spits, peaks, ridges, salt marshes, large sea stacks and sand dunes — helps us protect the quality of our environment.
Interpreting the landscape
Many land trust and conservation groups are realizing the importance that interpreting the intrinsic landscape can add to their land conservation strategies. By identifying these resources — determining which are rare, and how people value them — these organizations can better prioritize their activities. The Trust for Public Land (TPL), a national nonprofit land-conservation organization, has built this approach into its conservation planning.
“You can do all the science you want, but the only proposal approved is the one whose local delegation is telling their representatives what’s important to them,” said Roger Hoesterey, TPL Northwest regional director. “If you don’t ask the local people what’s important to them or why they go somewhere — whether it’s to see the view, the beaches, the clams, or the mountain cliffs — you won’t get anywhere."Ask them ‘Did you know this is the last sandspit, the biggest lagoon or the highest mountain face in your subregion, and it’s got access, but it’s not publicly owned?’ Turn it into a compelling story with GIS.”
Armed with this new strategy, TPL, with the Nature Conservancy and the People for Puget Sound, recently was awarded a $3 million grant from the Russell Family Foundation to launch the Puget Sound Shoreline Strategy. The goal of the project is to raise $80 million to protect hundreds of miles of Puget Sound shoreline and develop 10 new parks and natural areas — all by reconnecting people to the intrinsic qualities of our inland sea.
The Greenprint project
Recently, King County’s Department of Natural Resources and Parks, with TPL, Jones & Jones Architects and Landscape Architects, Earth Analytics, and the Point Wilson Group, developed the Greenprint for King County. The purpose of the project was to develop a land acquisition and conservation vision for all of King County.
“The vision articulates the importance of completing an interconnected network of land and water resources for the purposes of fish and wildlife conservation, farmland preservation, working forests, functioning floodplains, and the completion of a premier regional trail network,” said Jennifer Knauer, Greenprint for King County project manager for King County DNRP. “It is now possible to efficiently identify functionally valuable open space lands in need of protection, with the assistance of the project’s landscape characterization GIS computer model.”
Most recently, the ecological planning and design projects undertaken by Jones & Jones represent efforts to capture the notion of place and identify intrinsic landscape processes for conservation purposes. In an effort to support the original Greenprint for Puget Sound strategy for TPL, Jones & Jones developed a GIS-based model called ILARIS or the Intrinsic Landscape Aesthetic Resource Information System. It is being used on several conservation and stewardship planning projects in our region.
To better protect Puget Sound’s scenic and culturally sensitive lands, it is critical that planners catalog the best examples of regional landscape and assist communities in understanding how these rare landscape features fit in their own subregions, as well as in the larger regions and the world.
While we all recognize the importance of aesthetic resources, we, as professional planners, seldom take the time to represent them in GIS or integrate them into our scientific analyses. By measuring and monitoring the intrinsic aesthetic landscapes, so others can see them as a diminishing resource, we can provide community leaders with a more comprehensive form of mapping that supports discussions for conservation of our treasures.
Christopher L. Overdorf, ASLA, APA, is a principal with Jones & Jones Architects and Landscape Architects. He specializes in advanced planning and design technologies, including the integration of GIS with landscape aesthetics.
The Brown Bag Series of Continuing Education is the free noon-time program of the Puget Sound Section, American Planning Association (APA). You needn’t be an APA member to attend.
Our spring topics, occurring each Wednesday between April 26 and May 24, are:
- Historic preservation as economic development
- Land use entitlements and site plan approvals
- The WA Chapter APA’s Community Planning Assistance Team Program
- Placemaking on a Budget
- Improving the pedestrian environment (half-day)
Below is the current schedule of events. See recaps of past events at www.washington-apa.org. Attendees can buy a nice APA-subsidized lunch for only $2.00! Thanks to our speakers and the people who let us use their facilities.
SPRING '06 BROWN BAG SERIES OF CONTINUING EDUCATION
Come to the FREE session you need to do your job better! APA-subsidized lunches, only $2.00! RSVP to Steve Ladd, ladds@ci.bonney-lake.wa.us, (253) 447-4350.
Topic |
Time |
Place |
Great speakers! |
Community Planning Assistance Team (CPAT)
Washington APA now offers CPATs, whereby volunteer professionals help small communities with limited resources. The project’s “beta test” was the Sultan Downtown Visioning, in which the team spent a Saturday with local stakeholders and produced a vision statement. Learn about the program, the Sultan project, and future projects. Volunteers needed!
|
Noon to 1:15, Wed., May 10 |
Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady, 7th Floor |
Amy Tarce, Halcyon Planning and Urban Design
Roger Wagoner, BHC Consultants (ex-Berryman & Henigar)
|
Placemaking on a Budget
Our speakers are distinguished planners and authors of a new book on cost-effective ways to enhance community identity and increase social connections through local resources, involved people, and creative thinking. Also shows how to create distinctive, identity-building infrastructure. Help them ring in this exciting new addition to planning literature.
|
Noon to 1:15, Wed., May 17 |
Mercer Island City Council Chambers, City Hall, 9611 SE 36th St |
Al Zelinka and Susan Harden, RBF Consulting,
Irvine, CA
|
IMPROVING THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT
A HALF-DAY APA BROWN BAG SERIES
Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Place: Room L280, Level 2 of City Hall, 600 Fourth Avenue, Seattle
Program: All topics are lecture plus Q&A. Come to one or all. $2.00 lunches are available for the noon topic.
Time |
Topics |
Speakers |
12:00 - 12:30
|
Introduction and overview of policy and design aspects.
|
Lyle Bicknell, Senior Urban Designer, Seattle Dept. of Planning and Development
|
12:30 - 1:15
| How to strategically restructure sidewalks, open spaces, civic buildings, and traffic devices to make existing centers walkable, with the Mercer Corridor as a case study. |
Mark Hinshaw, Principal, LMN Architects
|
1:15 - 1:45
| How to balance pedestrians against other travel modes in the public right-of-way, with special concern for safety at street crossings. |
Katherine Casseday, Transportation Planning and Traffic Operations Manager, Alaskan Way Viaduct and SR 99 Team, City of Seattle
|
1:45 - 2:15
| How to review site plans for walkability and comply with SB 5186, which requires that comp plans address walking and biking needs. |
Lucy Sloman, Planning Consultant to City of Issaquah and President of CityWorks Inc.
|
2:15 - 2:45
| Private development incentives for pedestrian enhancements. |
Lyle Bicknell and/or Katherine Casseday
|
2:45 - 3:15
| How Sound Transit has been treating pedestrian mobility in its light rail design, with trade-offs to other modes. |
Ron Lewis, Deputy Director, Sound Transit LINK Light Rail
|
3:15 - 4:00
| Pedestrian planning need not be lonely! As the regional non-profit walkability advocate, Feet First can help through such initiatives as Community-based Active Living Task Forces and Walk To School funding. |
David Levinger, President and Executive Director, Feet First
|
|
|
|
JENNIFER AYLOR, AICP
- Where are you originally from and how long have you been in Washington State?
I was born in Tacoma and am a lifelong Washington resident.
- What is your educational background?
I have a BS in environmental science (social impact and policy assessment) from WWU, and graduate studies in Public Administration from Seattle U.
- What made you decide on a career in planning?
I stumbled into planning, really. I chose my major when I was 19. My then professor (later advisor) used the F word in class…twice! I was drawn to a program that stirred up such passion in him and liked the field.
Three years later I was 22 and college graduation was around the corner. I wondered if I would really find a job in the environmental science field. So mailed out 200 resumes on high quality paper to environmental companies, charged a good suit and a good briefcase, and waited for a call to interview for my dream job. I was quite surprised when one after another rejection letters began to arrive in my mailbox. Many companies did not even bother to respond. One person actually critiqued my resume! I learned later it was sent by a fellow WWU alumni. I figured if he would take time to give me positive feedback on my resume, he just might meet with me. So I stopped by his office wearing my new suit, and was ushered right back to meet him despite not having an appointment. After chatting with me, he called two other companies that he heard may be hiring, and sent me to see those contacts. My first job came from one of those two contacts.
- Where are you currently living and working?
I live in Mount Vernon and work in Marysville.
- Describe the planning work you do and your agency/firm?
I have worked for local government for 12 years, and have spent three years in the private sector. While working for government, I worked in current planning, long range planning, public works, and storm water management. In the private sector, I worked as an environmental consultant and senior planner.
I am now a senior restoration planner for a wetland and habitat mitigation banking company. We create and restore large areas of habitat for those impacting other areas of the natural environment.
- How would your city’s citizens describe you?
High energy, busy, outspoken.
- What are your primary planning interests? What types of projects really captivate you personally?
I most enjoy projects that I can see from inception to completion. For example, I like policy changes when you can see them take effect. I really enjoyed the Waitsburg acquisition project because I got to take an idea all the way through completion.
- Of which planning projects are you most proud?
The City of Waitsburg Hazard Mitigation Acquisition program. I wrote four grant applications for more than a million dollars in funding. I acquired 14 homes, elevated two houses, and moved one house. It was a challenge considering I had never bought a house! At just 26, I managed and completed every task associated with the project from developing the scope to grant reporting, to working with the families selling their homes, to the financial accounting and even the demolition and change in land use. I completed the project ahead of schedule and below budget. An impressive task considering I had never bought a house before!
- If you had the chance to do your whole career over, would you do anything different or are you happy with just the way it is?
I am quite happy with my career, both where I am and where I have been. I have been blessed with a terrific career that has provided a continual increase in salary, responsibility, and challenges. I am confident the future will also bring the changes to keep me motivated and challenged.
- Are you involved in any other divisions of the American Planning Association? If yes which ones?
I am the Northwest Section president. I conduct quarterly section meetings.
- Do you have any words of wisdoms to younger professional planners who may be interested in following your career path?
William Ruckelshaus (former EPA Director) of the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound once told me “Jennifer, if you find challenge, fulfillment and excitement while you feel you make a difference, and then you have the perfect job.” His wise words have guided me though several difficult career choices. Note money is not a key factor. As Oprah says, when you do what you love the money will follow.
|
|
|
WASHINGTON'S INITIATIVE 933 IS THE SON OF OREGON'S MEASURE 37
Richard Carson, Community Development Director, Clark County
The Washington Farm Bureau recently filed a request with the Secretary of State to collect petition signatures to put Initiative 933, euphemistically called the “Property Fairness Initiative,” on the state ballot. Initiative 933 is modeled after Oregon’s Measure 37, which is one of the most extreme property compensation laws in the nation. It can be argued that Oregon’s Measure 37 will be the demise of the oldest state planning program in America.
In the early 1970s the state of Oregon legislated state-mandated land use planning. It was touted as cutting edge public policy and hailed by some as a “grand experiment in land use planning.” In 1973, a bipartisan Oregon legislature and a progressive Republican governor named Tom MacCall approved the first statewide land use planning program in the nation. The program touted the use of mandated comprehensive plans and urban growth boundaries, all in the name of saving farms and forests. For over a quarter of a century, Oregon has received a lot of national media attention for this grand experiment in land use planning.
On November 2, 2004, the vaunted planning program was permanently crippled and politically rejected by the very citizens it purported to serve with the passage of ballot measure 37. After 30 years, and by a decisive 61 percent to 39 percent margin, the voters essentially terminated the grand experiment by passing the most draconian property compensation law in America.
The state’s newspaper, The Oregonian, reported that on the first day the law went into effect, citizens came in to file claims for such developments as a coastal subdivision with 400 one-acre lots, a farmland subdivision consisting of 350 two-acre lots, a plan for a rural subdivision with a gambling casino, as well as numerous small rural subdivisions. It also claimed that planners are “expecting proposals to build large retail centers or destination resorts on farmland that’s been in the same families for generations.”
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution guards a private landowner from the government “taking” of his or her property without compensation and the case law on compensation for government takings has been widely accepted for over 70 years. The United States Supreme Court cases have ruled that land use regulations had to be so restrictive as to rob the landowner of his or her land’s economic vitality. In other words, the government had to compensate for taking all the land’s value, but need not compensate for “partial” takings.
Oregon ballot measure 37 is a major historical precedent because local governments must now pay for “partial” takings. The ballot measure’s language is both as clear as it is devastating. The measure simply says that, “If a property owner proves that a land use regulation restricts the use of the owner’s property, and reduces its value then the government responsible for the regulation will have a choice: pay the owner of the property an amount equal to the reduction in value or modify, change or not apply the regulation to the owner’s property.” The primary caveat to this is that the regulations in question must have been those in effect when the person bought their property.
Ballot measure 37 has planted the seeds of discontent nationally. Just as the 1978 Proposition 13 tax limitation movement spread from California to the nation and just as the 1994 “Contract With America” made term limits the rage nationally, ballot measure 37 will gain national political attention. Sadly, the legacy of the Oregon planning experiment will not be leading America into the planning of the 21st century. It will be the unraveling of the planning gains made by others in the 20th century.
But will the same thing happen here in Washington that happened in Oregon? Washington’s state-mandated program is more decentralized than Oregon’s. We have three hearing board that are more localized. Oregon has one central court in the state capitol. Washington’s Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development is more of an “encouragement” agency and not a strong “enforcement” agency like Oregon’s Land Development Commission. The Oregon system was devised to be very litigious than Washington’s.
In Washington land use planning is much more pragmatic way. All in all, I don’t believe the Washington voters will send as strong a message as was heard in Oregon. Will it pass? Only time will tell.
|
| | |
|
SEATTLE DESIGN COMMISSION
| |
| | |
|
NEW COMMISIONERS SOUGHT FOR SEATTLE DESIGN COMMISSION
Seattle - Mayor Greg Nickels is looking for new members to serve on the Seattle Design Commission filling either of the following positions:
WA Licensed Architect
WA Licensed Engineer
These positions will begin in the fall of 2006.
"Superior urban design is essential for maintaining the livability of our great city," said Mayor Nickels. "I urge experienced designers to consider this important work." Design Commission members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council to serve renewable, two-year terms. The Commission currently consists of ten members: two licensed architects, one professional fine artist, one member-at-large, one Get Engaged member (YMCA Young Civic Leaders Program); and at least one of each of the following positions: urban planner, licensed engineer, licensed landscape architect, urban or environmental designer. Applications for other categories will be accepted and kept in a file for consideration as positions become available in the future.
The Seattle Design Commission was established in 1968 to act in a consulting, advisory capacity to City officials on design and environmental aspects of Capital Improvement Projects. The Commission reviews projects over several design phases. Members also sit on consultant selection panels convened by various departments for City projects. Commission meetings are held on the first and third Thursdays of each month during daytime hours. In addition, members also serve on project subcommittees and as Design Commission representatives on various advisory boards, spending an average of 20-25 hours per month on Commission business. City ordinance provides that no member of the Commission is eligible to contract with the City in connection with any Capital Improvement Project reviewed by the Commission. A requirement of this administration is that interested applicants must reside within the City of Seattle.
To be considered for appointment to the Commission, please send a letter of interest and resume by May 26, 2006 addressed to Mayor Greg Nickels c/o:
Layne Cubell, Coordinator
Seattle Design Commission
Department of Planning and Development
City of Seattle
700 – 5th Ave, Ste 2000
PO Box 34019
Seattle, Washington 98124-4019
The Nickels Administration is committed to promoting diversity in the City's boards and commissions. Women, persons with disabilities, sexual minorities, and persons of color are encouraged to apply.
For more information, please contact Layne Cubell, Design Commission Coordinator, at (206) 233-7911 or via e-mail at layne.cubell@seattle.gov, or Alan Justad, (206) 233-3891, or via email at alan.justad@seattle.gov.
For more information on the Mayor’s initiatives, please visit the Mayor’s web site at www.seattle.gov/mayor. Get the Mayor’s inside view on initiatives to promote transportation, public safety, economic opportunity and healthy communities by signing up for The Nickels Newsletter at http://www.cityofseattle.net/mayor/newsletter_signup.htm.
SAVE THESE DATES!
June 1-2, 2006
APA - Inland Empire Section 2006 Annual Conference
Spaces, Shapes, Movement
Form-based zoning is on the table. Can it work for your community? Join other planning professionals who are just as curious as you are at the Inland Empire Section’s 2006 Annual Conference. On Thursday, learn from those who are trying to make it happen. Then you will take a shot at it yourself in Friday’s charettes. Our featured speakers include planners, consultants and developers, each offering their views on how form-based planning can help create the shapes, spaces, and movement communities desire.
Elkin’s Resort at Priest Lake once again provides the beautiful and tranquil setting for the APA-Inland Empire Section’s Annual Conference. In addition to the sessions, the longstanding Cities vs. Counties Volleyball rivalry, Fun Run, Mountain Bike Ride, and Golf Tournament add to the many benefits derived from the conference. Thursday evening’s dinner will be followed by the APA Scholarship Fund T-shirt Auction.
For more information, please contact Susan Winchell at (509) 477-4237.
October 4-6, 2006
WA-APA Annual Conference, Yakima, WA
MONTHLY NEWSLETTER
Have a project you want to highlight for planners across the state? An issue you think more planners need information on? Planning Northwest is always looking to highlight projects and research of our members. If you are interested in having an article published feel free to contact the editor.
The deadline for the newsletter is the first of every month. Please submit all newsletter articles to Angela Brooks, AICP at angeladbrooks@gmail.com. Please include Planning Northwest in your subject line.
|
