Rufus Rose claims in his Jan. 28 viewpoint in The Record that the Growth Management Act (GMA) is at fault for homelessness because it prevents construction of new affordable housing. He fails to mention that GMA actually has as one of its goals planning for affordable housing. GMA requires that housing should be directed toward areas which already provide urban infrastructure, mainly sewers, in part to keep costs down.
It’s not just about the cost of construction. We see cheaply built housing which is very expensive to occupy because the insulation is not up to standard, the heating system is less than efficient, the materials are sub-par, and the workers were forced to take time-saving shortcuts. Also, public services such as transit, schools, hospitals, libraries, etc. become more expensive as the distance between housing units increases. People who live on 5-acre parcels almost have to own a car, another expense.
Rufus claims that new construction in rural Island County requires a minimum of 5 acres. Nope. There are many existing parcels which are smaller than 5 acres in the Rural zone. Also spread around the county are “RAIDs” – rural areas of more intense rural development. Zoning in many RAIDS is as high as three units/acre. The ability to place high density housing on 5-acre parcels will not reduce the cost. It will only increase the profit of developers, raise property taxes, reduce livability, and increase the number of mid-to-high end units available as Air B&Bs.
Recently the Island County Housing Authority built 25 housing units across the highway from Freeland. Rufus objected vehemently.
He also lays the ills of the entire society at the foot of GMA. Sorry, that shoe does not fit. He claims that doing away with GMA and all limits to development will reduce the number of homeless people. I disagree.
What will very quickly reduce homelessness is to change the county’s regulations concerning what is an acceptable dwelling unit. For many years Island County disallowed single-wide mobiles outside trailer parks for aesthetic reasons. I think that is flat out wrong. Aesthetic sensibilities should not outweigh the right of people to put a roof over their heads. People are still prosecuted for allowing someone to live in a camper or bus on their property. Rather than dictating the size or shape of a person’s dwelling, I believe the county should ask the fundamental questions: Is there a safe system on site for dealing with solid waste? Is there access to clean water? Is the structure, whatever its nature, safe for human habitation? Is there a safe means to store and prepare food?
There are many avenues to deal with homelessness. Dumping GMA is not one of them. Not only would it not reduce the cost of housing, it would cause a whole range of negative impacts.
To quote Rufus: “You say you don’t want us to be like Lynnwood. What’s wrong with Lynnwood?”
Editor’s note: Edain is the co-founder of Whidbey Environmental Action Network.
