Washington Growth Management Act After 20 Years: Working or Not?

2010 marks 20 years since the Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) was first passed by the state legislature with a stated purpose of addressing the significant threat posed by the then-current system of “uncoordinated and unplanned” growth in the state.  GMA was born out of political compromise and significant public debate over what level of local government (“bottom-up”) versus state government (“top-down”) requirements and decision making will best serve the interests (and independence) of the state as a whole. 

Perhaps because the initial legislation was riddled with politically necessary omissions, internal inconsistencies, and vague languagethe legislation has been amended in some form almost every year since adoption in an effort to respond to ambiguities and further advance the growth management goals while maintaining an often-disputed balance between the role of state requirements and the role of local government in setting plans for future growth.

Twenty years later is perhaps an appropriate time to reflect on whether GMA’s 13 goals have been achieved, whether additional legislative changes are required and whether any such changes ought to be minor tweaks or major overhauls to the fundamental framework on how land use planning is implemented in Washington. 

Ed McGuire, former GMA Hearings Board member, Joe Tovar, City of Shoreline Planning Director, Tim Trohimovich, Futurewise Co-Director of Planning and Law, and Jay Derr, partner at GordonDerr engaged in such a discussion at the Washington State Bar Association Environmental and Land Use Law (ELUL) Section Midyear Meeting at Ocean Shores in May, 2010.  That discussion noted some significant achievements in containing sprawl and concentrating growth within urban areas (GMA Goals 1 & 2) and protection of natural resource lands and critical areas (Goals 8 & 10); but also noted some significant failures or, at least, unfinished business in addressing affordable housing (Goal 4), economic development (Goal 5), property rights (Goal 6), timely and fair permit processing (Goal 7) and adequate provision of public facilities and services (Goal 12). 

Finding the right balance between conflicting interests to meet GMA’s objectives for coordinated and well-planned growth in our state is as difficult today as it was twenty years ago. Concentrated urban growth is a laudable goal, perhaps until it shows up in your neighborhood.  Lynn Thompson’s Seattle Times article on the Point Wells redevelopment highlights exactly that problem.  The Point Wells development would involve cleanup of an oil tank farm located between the cities of Woodway and Shoreline (more specifically the Richmond Beach neighborhood) and redevelopment of the site as a high-density, mixed-use urban community which, according to the Times article, is described by the neighbors “as dense with new condos as downtown Bellevue.”  Although surrounded by the cities of Woodway and Shoreline, the property is actually located in unincorporated Snohomish County, giving rise to some turf-battles over which jurisdiction should have what level of input into the development proposal.  Appeals are already filed. 

While the proposed environmental clean up and high-density redevelopment should, on one level, be embraced as exactly what GMA encourages,  the scale of the impacts that will result from that development and the dispute arising between the owners, the local neighbors and the three local governments all seeking a say and, perhaps, control over what redevelopment can occur is merely one example of the difficulties faced in striking the balance to achieve GMA goals.  Twenty years of GMA planning have not made the battles over urban density and urban impacts disappear.

Tadas Kisielius contributed to this post

In the coming weeks we will be posting a series of blog entries on the state of the GMA after 20 years.  We will explore the challenges we, as a state, are facing in achieving the GMA’s original goals and potential ways to meet those challenges. 

No comments yet

Start the discussion by using the form below

Post a comment

Fill out this form to add a comment to the discussion
I'd like to leave a comment. is
,
is
,
is
is