“Is Clark County addicted to growth?” (The Columbian, May 26). The assumptions and conclusions created by this narrative must be addressed but are too numerous and the data too prolific for this space. But the underlying premise can be examined by dissecting a quote at the beginning of the article.
The quote attributed to David McDonald — “It just seems the residential developers, the building industry, over the course of the last three decades have generated a disproportionate amount of growth …” — is an erroneous description of how the market works. Although the cliche “build it and they will come” seems on its face an easily digestible truth, it has no basis in reality.
Housing development does not generate growth but reacts to market conditions that demand it. This is evident in the housing affordability crisis we are currently experiencing.
Unlike cars or Doritos, housing sales aren’t created or encouraged by a slick advertising campaign, but by the desire of people to live in a certain area. Our growth is a testament to the quality of life we have created in Clark County, but unfortunately demand outstrips supply.
This situation is caused by many factors: real and artificial limits on supply, a constrained growth boundary, increasing restrictions on buildings and development sites (many of which are necessary to protect our environment and community), and, as pointed out, inadequate infrastructure.
Another assumption, that the land in question can be better used for economic development, chooses to ignore some immutable truths. Any commercial or retail enterprise needs employees who must have a place to live. With housing unavailable or unaffordable, as it is now, economic development is limited.
Just as commercial development needs housing, housing development needs commerce. This is the reason the housing and commercial development industries support an accurate inventory of land and zoning types informed through the legislative process.
A more appropriate title should read “Is Clark County addicted to ever increasing revenue?” The answer would be yes. But that does not fall squarely on the shoulders of the development community, our local elected officials or jurisdictions.
An unsustainable system
When our neighbors moved here decades ago, they as individual buyers or homeowners didn’t pay for growth. It was considered a function of government, and broad-based taxing regimes were created to address it. In addition, the state of Washington and its citizens also assumed these costs as part of a civic obligation with the state constructing or funding many of these projects. As the state has forced costly regulations and unfunded mandates on counties and cities, they have also cut back on the financial support they give those jurisdictions. Couple this with a 1 percent property tax cap and you have an unsustainable system.
The issues highlighted are not a problem created by development. These issues have been created at the state level and by the inability, or unwillingness, of communities to generate revenue to cover the cost of operations and infrastructure that they did in the past and are responsible for now.
The construction industry has and will continue to pay impact fees; traffic, park, school, etc., but to imply that growth doesn’t pay for its impacts on what are community obligations is a myopic and simplistic view that ignores a much larger problem.
These issues demand a community solution and broad-based revenue generation, not finger pointing. Never mind that through initial fees and ongoing taxes, as well as jobs supported and revenue created, each housing unit added quickly repays the burden placed on the community.
Ryan Makinster is the government affairs director for the Building Industry Association of Clark County.
