When the GMA passed, we were told that the law would be flexible, and would allow for differences between urban, suburban and rural areas. But, as with many other laws, good intentions don’t always guarantee good results. In the wake of the GMA we’ve seen skyrocketing home prices, rising traffic congestion in the urban Puget Sound area, and arrested economic development in rural areas,.

The people who wrote the GMA had 13 goals they hoped to achieve with passage of the law. Here’s a rundown of several of the GMA’s major goals and how effective they’ve been:
Urban growth:

Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.

This sounds good, but in fact the GMA has created more stress on existing water, sewer and road facilities, and in turn more expenses for local. governments.
Reducing sprawl:

Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. In practice, the GMA has forced many people who work in King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties to move their families to Kittitas, Whatcom and Skagit counties and other outlying areas. Long commutes can be tiring and frustrating for working people, and take valuable time away from family and leisure time. They also add to traffic congestion.
Transportation:

Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.

Growth-control proponents encourage taxpayer-funded transit. Conspicuously absent from their plans are efforts to increase highway capacity and ease traffic congestion. The upward trend of annual hours of delay per driver is not only alarming, it’s also expensive. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, congestion in urban areas creates greater expenses for drivers. This expense is called the “congestion tax” — the cost of delay plus the cost of wasted fuel from sitting in traffic.
Housing:

Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.

The GMA has decreased the amount of buildable land, causing real estate prices to soar. We’ve all read about expensive home prices in the Puget Sound region. But people throughout the state are also feeling the crunch. In a 1997 study by the Washington Center for Real Estate Research, Clark County’s GMA-mandated urban growth area was shown to have contributed to a staggering 35 percent increase in residential lot prices. In Chehalis (Lewis County), GMA regulations have also taken their toll — the average home price was $85,000 in 1990; today it’s $135,000.

In this year’s State of the State address, Gov. Gary Locke said Washington is a state where a young family can buy a home that doesn’t force them to live paycheck to paycheck. This doesn’t sound like the state described in the dozens of letters and hundreds of phone calls I have received from families who have lost hope of ever owning a home. Skyrocketing home prices have put the American dream out of reach for many working families.
Economic development:

Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic development opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state’s natural resources, public services and public facilities.

The gap between urban and rural areas in both income and unemployment is dramatically wide. The Puget Sound area enjoys low unemployment rates (in King County, unemployment is 3.1 percent) and high median household income (in King County, it’s $59,000). But it’s not unusual for rural areas to have double digit jobless rates (in Adams, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin, Grant, Okanogan, Pend Oreille and Stevens Counties, for example) and much lower income.
Property Rights:

Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.

Again, this is a case of good intentions gone awry. Property owners who have not been allowed to develop or use their own land because of GMA restrictions, but have been required to pay rising property taxes, do not believe their property rights have been protected.
Permits:

Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.

State law requires permits to be issued within 120 days. In reality, people who want to build homes or expand businesses have had to wait up to seven years to get all the necessary permits. That’s neither timely nor fair.

Growth management was originally a simple concept that, in theory, tried to target some areas for more growth and other areas for less. But in practice, the GMA hasn’t even begun to fulfill the promise of its original goals. And it is partly responsible for rising home costs, housing shortages and negative economic impacts on rural citizens.

This year legislators will be looking at the GMA’s role in both the urban housing crunch and rural economic problems. And Gov. Locke is planning a ten year anniversary celebration of the GMA. But before we get out the confetti, we need to consider how Washington citizens are coping with regulations designed a decade ago. And if some GMA rules aren’t working like they’re supposed to, we should be flexible enough to change them.

(Editor’s Note: Rep. Joyce Mulliken (R-Ephrata), serves the 13th Legislative District in Central Washington. She is the co-chair of the House Local Government Committee.).