Asking Tough Questionsby Peter Moulton For the SPEECH Board of Directors Three things come to mind as I prepare this column in the wee hours before our production run. The first is a sense of amazement and gratitude at how far Green Pages has come in recent months. Mike Nelson, Martin Lee and their fleet of writers, artists and editors deserve special acknowledgment for taking this paper, and our sister web site, to new levels of style and substance. This month's issue is itself an example of how well our new thematic approach to issues has paid off. My second thought concerns this month's topic, Urban Ecology. To many, this probably sounds like a oxymoron given the deleterious environmental impacts of much of our urban landscape. Yet, as Mary Shacklett points out in this issue, urban ecology is fundamentally about a balancing of human and natural systems. It informs many of the policy guidelines contained within Washington's Growth Management Act, and in turn the comprehensive planning documents generated by our local governments. And to achieve our planning goals, government must develop and implement the economic incentives and disincentives needed to steer how we grow. Our report on the "Redevelopment for Livable Communities" conference recently staged in Tacoma explores a few of the opportunities and challenges to crafting more sustainable urban spaces. Which brings us back again to the question of how we're going to pay for growth without sacrificing our existing quality of life. We know growth does not pay for itself under our current systems of revenue collection. This really isn't an issue any more, and is the basis for one of GMA's primary goals of urban infilling. Yet in Springfield, Oregon, where they have a ten year jump on us in growth management, the past decade of expansion has tripled per capita spending by the city for urban services. And this spring, the well-managed municipality of Redmond discovered municipal service costs will begin to exceed anticipated revenues (e.g. they'll start running a deficit) within the next three years due to rapid buildout. Closer to home, the Thurston Regional Planning Council's initial look at capital facilities proposed by local comp plans over the next five years tallied over $680 million in expenditures, not including LOTT expansion. Still to come (hopefully later this month) will be a detailed look at whether this fully reflects the "catch-up, keep-up and new capacity" costs needed to fulfill those elusive "levels of service" requirements under GMA. In the meantime, we have yet to find 60% of the funding proposed for our transportation infrastructure over the next five years, and 40% of the funding for parks projects relies on proposed bond issues likely to compete with planned school bonds and levies. In theory, if probable funding for capital facilities falls short of meeting existing needs, then the land use element of a comp plan needs to be revisited. Until someone makes this case, we can at least be asking the difficult questions in earnest: "Why aren't impact fees applied by local jurisdictions in a more consistent and comprehensive manner? Why are customers in different jurisdictions levied different rates for common services, such as LOTT? Why aren't local political leaders more interested in grappling with the long-term consequences of growth in their communities?" Which brings me to my third thought - filing week. As members of the community step forward to stand for election this fall, be ready to ask them the tough questions, and demand the same from your local media. Look for election endorsements from TEAL, Sierra Club and the Carnegie Group. They'll be asking the tough questions. And to sure to join SPEECH at one or more candidate debates later this fall.
Back to Home page. |
