Living closer together doesn't mean we have to step on each other's toes

By Steve Francks and Gene Duvernoy

Special to The Seattle Times

Published March 7, 2008

The conclusion to be drawn from the new University of Washington study  about the effect of land-use rules on home prices is not that we must choose between afford able housing and clean air, open space, parks and a green quality of life.

We can avoid that false choice by planning wisely for both: keeping our environment healthy and addressing the region's growing population and housing needs.

First, we must be realistic about the land that's actually usable in meeting the demand for homes.

The 1990 Growth Management Act requires fast-growing cities and counties to identify in a "buildable lands" report what land is available for homes. Too often, the reports portray land as "buildable" when it's not.

The reports identify land that lacks infrastructure — the pipes and wires that allow lights to come on, toilets to flush and drinking water to flow.

Other parcels are too expensive to acquire, are part of a contaminated industrial site, or are located too close to a stream or lake.

Just knowing where buildable land lies, however, isn't enough. Most land in urban areas is already in use. Therefore, expanding housing diversity will require innovation that more efficiently uses the land we already have. We must move beyond the approaches to design and planning that got us here.

Surely the region that leads the world in research and development in software, aerospace and biotechnology can think its way out of this box.

Next, let's stop planning for the past.

For decades, we've focused on space-consuming homes designed to accommodate two-parent families with kids and dogs and gardens. While we still need some traditional homes, we know that lifestyle choices are far more diverse now than 50 years ago and our housing supply and land-use rules should reflect that change.

Over the years, we've set ourselves up for another false choice — between large-lot, single-family residences, and large, high-rise multifamily buildings.

There are many alternatives that we're just not looking at.

We already know the formula for increasing the diversity of home options without sacrificing quality of life or the character of our community. A market-based approach to both conservation and housing, using such tools as transfer of development rights and conservation villages, would protect the environment and promote housing diversity. If regulations allow it, careful attention to architectural detail and new design concepts can add homes gracefully to existing neighborhoods. Mixed-use housing, accessory dwelling units, high rises and urban cottages expand home choices, while helping preserve green space, parks and natural settings.

Finally, even good rules and regulations are costly and frustrating when poorly executed. Let's regulate what we must to protect air and water quality and open space. But, if these are things we value, then we must invest in the people and systems required to make regulation reliable and permitting dependable.

Living closer together doesn't mean we have to step on each other's toes, if we have diverse home styles, prices and locations. We don't have to throw up our hands and resign ourselves and our children to being priced out of homes because we've wisely chosen to protect the environment.

Innovation can help make the most efficient use of land to create home choices people want and need while we continue to protect the quality of life in Seattle that we hold dear.

Steve Francks is the chief executive officer of the Washington Realtors, www.warealtor.org, in Olympia; Gene Duvernoy is president of the Cascade Land Conservancy, www.cascadeland.org, Seattle.

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company