So official Washington state public policy has attempted to manage growth, control sprawl, draw boundaries around urban development, and place unnatural obstacles in the paths of those who would provide housing, jobs, and services to a market that demands to be satisfied.

Recently, King County has been embroiled in a controversy over whether churches can be built outside the urban growth boundaries, and if so, under what conditions. In a wonderful example of unintended consequences, it appears that the state’s 10-year-old Growth Management Act (GMA) has now resulted in a flowering of ecumenism, as representatives of various denominations bond together to demand the First Amendment right to serve their flocks — notwithstanding the regulatory hurdles erected by local officials.

No freeloader here. Recently, the Washington Research Council (WRC) set out to document the direct revenues collected by state and local government as a result of housing development. The numbers may surprise you. Kriss Sjoblom, WRC’s economist, found that the construction and sale of an actual house in Kirkland, which sold for $250,000, resulted in tax and fee collections of nearly $22,000. A lot of that money flow occurs outside the clear view of the eventual purchaser.

Let’s break it down. Although the sale by a builder of a completed house to a consumer is not subject to the sales tax, the builder’s purchase of construction materials and payments to contractors are taxed. In all, these taxes amounted to $10,391. Add to that $4,865 in real estate excise taxes paid by the seller when the property was sold. Plus, contractors are subject to business and occupation taxes, which in this case amounted to $555. The builder, who owned the lot for 18 months, paid $430 in property taxes. Finally, the builder ended up paying a road impact fee of $966, a park impact fee of $612, and water/sewer connection charges of $3,861. In all, the total take was $21,680.

It could have been higher. Kirkland did not charge a school impact fee.

Increasingly common, these impact fees significantly increase the cost of housing. Had the house been built in Issaquah, for example, a school impact fee of $6,131 would have been imposed.

So, taxes and fees amounted to about nine percent of the sale price (Regulatory costs, which are not considered here, typically add from 10 percent to 20 percent to the cost of a new house.). The state collected $11,844 and the city collected $7,875, with the balance distributed to Metro Transit, Sound Transit, the school district, and the county.

And, while the $22,000 collected at the downstroke goes a long way toward affirmatively answering the question “does growth pay for itself?” that’s really only the beginning.

The purchaser of that Kirkland home will pay annual property taxes of about $2,700. And, when the home is resold, typically in about seven years, there will be additional transaction taxes and fees.

The home buyer, of course, is not simply a passive consumer of public services. The family purchasing the Kirkland home will most likely work in the area, buy goods and services, perhaps even start a small business. An average King County family earning $100,000 pays sales, utility, and excise taxes of about $3,920 annually, in addition to the property tax. In short, the family continues to contribute to the regional economy, including providing the tax and fee revenue that pays for growth — and then some.

Sustainable economic development Commercial, retail, and industrial developments typically generate substantial revenues for state and local government. As a consequence, government sometimes practices “fiscal zoning” to discourage residential development in favor of the big-ticket projects.

Sustainable economic development, however, requires a balance of residential and nonresidential uses. And, as the Kirkland example demonstrates, housing development alone provides substantial revenue to pay for itself.

Years ago, I knew a guy who drove a 10-year- old car that had been involved in a number of minor traffic accidents, with all the battle scars showing. He would park it in a prominent position in heavily used parking lots, hoping someone would administer the coup de grace.

He figured the next person to hit the car would end up taking care of all his deferred maintenance and provide him the upgrade he’d been unwilling to pay for. Current efforts to “make growth pay for itself’ often resemble that kind of thinking, as taxes, regulations, and fees are piled on the newest arrivals to compensate for decades of underfunded infrastructure investments.

Growth management is often a defensive and negative strategy. Advocates of restrictive anti-sprawl policies have charged that the well-publicized problems in the Puget Sound region — congestion, high housing prices, etc.,. stem directly from our economic successes, from growth. Nonsense. These problems stem, not from growth, but from our state and regional unwillingness to prepare for and accommodate growth and to accept the responsibilities that must accompany success.

Roads have not been built, housing supply has been constrained by regulation, and the regional quality of life has been compromised. Policy makers, unfortunately, have focused more on managing growth than on managing for growth and making the prudent investments required. And we’ve all paid the price.

Despite significant competitive challenges, we continue to enjoy the fruits of a decade of unparalleled prosperity — the clearest measure of the return to our region of sustained growth.

The evidence is in. Growth has clearly and abundantly paid for itself. And will continue to do so unless artificially constrained by unnecessarily restrictive public policies.

(Editor’s Note: Richard S. Davis is president of the Washington Research Council. He can be reached at rsdavis@researchcouncil.org.).