Climate Change & Neighborhoods: HB 1490

We can have green communities but not by repeating the mistakes of the past; this bill will:

•    Increase homeowner costs and taxes,
•    Force high density developments into single-family neighborhoods,
•    Regulate your driving patterns instead of vehicle emissions, and
•    Waste government and business spending on another ten years of costly lawsuits.
 
Protect neighborhoods; don’t shatter them with unwanted development, one-size-fits all zoning requirements, and still more taxes.

As we move to create communities with more transportation options it is important to remember that government must work with community leaders, impacted neighborhoods, and the business community to insure success in all these sectors.  HB 1490 moves in the opposite direction with regulations and mandates that will (1) force unwanted high density development in neighborhoods that oppose such changes, (2) discourage developments in many areas that want investments, and (3) expand taxes and fees everywhere.  The bill seeks to encourage transit orientated development areas but places so may unrelated housing and social engineering requirements on the developments that housing costs will be artificially high and/or the development will not be economical to build.

Current local planning requirements address climate change; don’t add ambiguous new language that will once again waste money on attorney fees and hurt economic growth.

Who are the “environmentalists” representing these days, the people or the lawyers?  The bill contains well intentioned-changes to several land use planning requirements.  However, instead of clarifying the new requirements, this bill (1) imposes an ambiguous Growth Management Act planning requirement forcing local jurisdictions to “support state greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements,” and (2) adds a goal “to reduce annual per capita vehicle miles traveled” for applicable regional transportation plans.    It took over a decade and millions of dollars to litigate the 1995 general changes to the GMA, “best available science.”  The proposed changes can already be achieved under existing goals and left unclarified, the new language will create delays and attorney fees for another decade.

Finally, the legislation directs local governments to regulate vehicle miles traveled by citizens instead of focusing on the real climate change problem, vehicle emissions.

There are a number of ways to reduce green house gas emissions from electric cars to more effective transportation planning, and that should be the goal, not arbitrarly regulating miles driven.

What is the goal here, a green future --- or more greenbacks, unfunded mandates for local governments, and unrelated agendas?