the official blog of the evergreen freedom foundation

Is land development really against the "public interest"?

Posted by Trent England - October 08, 2009

Language in one of today's Washington State Supreme Court opinions caught my eye. In a lead opinion allowing the City of Bonney Lake to prevent a condominium development by suddenly re-zoning property from commercial to "Residential/Conservation," Justice Charles Johnson wrote the following dicta.

The goal of the statute is to strike a balance between the public's interest in controlling development and the developers' interest in being able to plan their conduct with reasonable certainty. Development interests can often come at a cost to public interest. The practical effect of recognizing a vested right is to potentially sanction a new nonconforming use. "A proposed development which does not conform to newly adopted laws is, by definition, inimical to the public interest embodied in those laws." If a vested right is too easily granted, the public interest could be subverted. [citations deleted, emphasis added]
 
Now there certainly can be land developments that impinge on the "public interest." But don't we think that most development actually serves the interests of the public by providing new homes, opportunities for new businesses, and so on? A city preventing development certainly should not be assumed to be acting in the public's interest. It might simply be protecting a cartel or serving one set of entrenched interests to the detriment of people with less political clout.
 
For more, check out The Supreme Court of Washington Blog.

Thoughts?   Add Comment -

Trent said on Oct 08 2009 at 11:58am
If you want some idea of what it takes to develop "affordable housing," check out this pdf checklist from Bonney Lake.

http://www.ci.bonney-lake.wa.us/UserFiles/File/Forms/BuildingPlanning/Commercial_or_Multifamily_Type_3_Permit.pdf

Britt said on Oct 08 2009 at 1:06pm
As a resident of a rural Eastern Washington county, a farmer, and a long-time county planning commissioner this is the height of hypocrisy! We are constantly threatened by Futurewise et. all for allowing any reasonable development of “non-urban” lands and yet now we see that urban lands need to be preserved FROM development!?!?!? Just where do they think we should build our homes??? Planners plan and developers work in the real world providing what society demands. I’ve never met a planner that didn’t think they knew it all but strangely I’ve never seen one try their hand at actually developing a project? Ask any developer, they don’t develop a project just because they like to build things; they develop because the public is “interested” in their product.

If all that it takes is to simply rezone a project out of “conformity” because some planner or politician has a better answer (or competing project) to what is in the “public interest” then our constitutional republic has truly crumbled. The GMA has caused untold economic hardships on our transportation infrastructure, our affordable housing and the economies of our rural counties. All to “prevent sprawl” that some small group of idealistic planners detested years ago. The funny thing really is though, developers and property owners think faster than government bureaucrats and while some projects are subject to this kind of retribution, many make it past them. Guess that’s the glass-is-half-full viewpoint.

Sue Lani said on Oct 08 2009 at 4:28pm
People travel hundreds and thousands of miles to visit historic cities and small towns developed without the master hand of planners dictating the development of every streetcorner.

Planners contribute best when their plans establish a broad framework and rhythm (like the Olmstead brothers park plan for Spokane, or L'Enfant's vision for Washington DC), and then are filled in with vibrant development that may occasionally hit a sour note but often provides unexpected harmonies.