While your current series and opinion pieces on “affordable housing” have been interesting and provocative, I must take issue with the underlying assumptions of your findings.
The current housing situation is neither a “crisis” nor a situation that is a result of developer actions. The situation was predicted in the early 1990s and has been prevalent to varying degrees since that time. The availability of housing, both in quantity and quality (price) is a function of state and local government control through central planning policies.
The decision to effectively force new-home creation into local government-created “urban growth areas” (UGAs) immediately limited the land available for development, therefore increasing the price of each lot. By assuming that all land within an urban growth area would be redeveloped at the required higher densities needed to meet demand, government failed to recognize that existing land owners might not desire to sell out or redevelop their properties (we call them “homes”).
In fact, contrary to a Kitsap County assumption that at least 75 percent of existing land owners in the Silverdale UGA would opt to redevelop, an actual survey of those owners determined that fewer than 20 percent would do so. The assumption, although proven invalid, continued to be used as a basis for planning.
The central planning policies require densities of not less than 5-9 units per acre in UGA or not more than 1 home per five acres in rural areas. Can we see the impact of that density policy on housing availability? In addition to the pervasive land-limiting development policies, local governments have created permitting policies that do little more than add cost to a new home without any increase in avulse. Between unnecessary professional studies (the county does not have equally qualified personnel to assess the study results), virtually unlimited interference in development by persons who have no direct or vested interest in the development site, and excessive delay in permit approval, the cost of a new home simply escalates.
The county permitting process is further aggravated by subjecting a basic county function to a pay-for-itself arrangement that allows the department to find ways to cover its costs and which has no understanding of the time cost of money associated with financing new-home creation. If you really want to end the self-imposed crisis of affordable housing, first eliminate central planning and then restore an effective (fast and inexpensive) permitting process. You might be surprised at how well a free-market solution responds to housing needs.
Jack Hamilton
Silverdale
