PLANNING THE WEST
Population Gains Eat Up Available Land in the West
By Headwaters News, 9-18-06
"Plan" and "zone" used to be treated as other four-letter words uttered in some parts of the West, but as waves and waves of newcomers fill up subdivisions that are popping up all over the region, land-use efforts are gaining ground in new areas of the West and are being revamped in areas that have had such plans in place for decades.
The desire for suburban living that arose in the 40s and 50s has turned into the desire for a place of one’s own, usually in exurbs.
Exurbs, those subdivisions miles away from the closest towns, were the focus of a two-day land-use conference held last week in Idaho.
The Idaho Statesman reports that ranchers, public officials, conservationists, hunters and anglers at the Idaho Land-Use Summit voiced their concerns about what is happening in rural Idaho counties.
County officials said that a state mandate on managing growth should come with assistance for such planning efforts attached. The Statesman quotes Adams County Commissioner Judy Ellis as saying, "We are one of four states without technical support (offered to counties for planning), yet we are mandated by the state to plan. There's not a full-time planner anywhere in our county. I'm a teacher and a dairyman. I didn't come prepared to write ordinances."
The change in the highest value use of private land from agricultural and resource uses such as timber and mining into development is part of the reason rural counties are being hit with an onslaught of growth issues.
And as development consumes more and more land, wildlife officials said keeping access open to public lands is increasingly difficult. Sixty percent of Idaho lands are public lands—and most of the best wildlife habitat is on private lands — which makes government support of private landowners willing to create and conserve important habitat increasingly important.
Ada County’s Blueprint for Good Growth was lauded by conference attendees as a step in the right direction. The comprehensive land-use plan that links growth with transportation plans cleared its first major hurdle when the Blueprint’s policies and objectives were approved by the county, the six city councils within the county and state and county transportation officials. Now the blueprint moves on to actual projects and governmental agreements on those projects.
Idaho officials need look no further than Colorado to see how various land-use plans have played out over the past two decades of phenomenal growth.
The Boulder Daily Camera reports that over the past 50 years, Colorado’s population has more than tripled; Boulder County’s population has increased six-fold and tiny Superior which lies between Denver and Boulder on Colo. 128 has grown from a sleepy burg of 134 to more than 13,700 today.
Boulder planners anticipate that Boulder will gain somewhere between 13,000 and 16,000 residents over the next 15 years or so, and Denver area planners anticipate another 1.3 million residents will arrive in their area over that time period.
That anticipation of growth has provided the impetus for The Denver Regional Council of Governments’ Metro Vision 2030 plan -- which calls for the development of “distinct pedestrian-friendly urban and suburban communities within a limited area," with transportation systems including "sidewalks, bike paths, bus service, rail transit and roads,” and it calls for, among other things, increasing the density of housing as a means to accommodate future growth.
Boulder County has plenty of open space, thanks to ambitious efforts to help ensure that about 65 percent of the county’s 474,000 total acres are dedicated to open space. But those planning efforts that limited residential growth while allowing commercial and industrial growth to continue have fostered a commuter work force which drove sprawl outside the county.
Planners say that increasing housing density from an average of four units per acre to 4.5 units per acre would conserve an area the size of the city of Boulder by 2030.
At least one developer has already jumped on board the infill train of thought for new development. The Denver Post today reports that the Birch Street Group saw potential in Denver’s smaller lots four years ago and began designing homes to fit into the Mile High City’s older neighborhoods.
While Denver and other cities such as Salt Lake City have been plagued with “McMansions”, those over-sized behemoth new homes that tower above modest bungalows in some older neighborhoods, the Birch Street Group said it tries to make sure the homes fit into the neighborhoods. Over the past four years in Denver’s older neighborhoods that have been built out for decades, the company has replaced more than 100 homes and they have 60 more projects under development.
Montana, too, has its woes created by a new wave of growth. An Associated Press story published in the Billings Gazette said one of the primary concerns for Flathead County officials who are working on a comprehensive growth plan, is how to manage growth and sustain affordable housing.
The county’s comprehensive growth plan currently under construction calls for “safe housing that is available, accessible and affordable for all sectors of the population.” But the Flathead County Planning Board says that clause needs to be strengthened. The board suggested adding density bonuses that give developers an incentive to create affordable housing in new subdivisions. The Board also said new consideration should be given to trailer parks and subdivisions that allow manufactured housing.
As the Flathead County Planning Board offers trailer parks as a way to boost affordable housing numbers, trailer parks in other states are already being emptied out to clear the way for pricier housing. Elderly residents and lower-income residents are already being evicted from their homes because the owners of the trailer parks are selling out to developers.
And so the cycle continues.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.




Comments
Alan Gregory
Idaho State University '75
Conyngham, PA
Many who oppose all growth have conveniently forgotten that it was not all that long ago when they were the ones immigrating to the West and the land their homes now occupy used to be that "open space" they now covet ~ at the expense of some other property owner ~ and too often with the end run equaling the exclusion of any person who can not afford to pay the prices that follow hand in hand with extremes in land planning.
Land is a commodity like all others subject to supply and demand or, as the old saying goes: God ain't makin' no more of it. As the supply of available homesites becomes more limited, further regulated and contained, the price of homes increase dramatically. One would have to look far and wide to find a better example of how land use structures society as it contains growth than Boulder, CO. The average Joe can no longer afford to live in Boulder and has not been able to afford a home there for many years.
So at some point those of us who love the West and all that's in it must ask ourselves if the West we want is one only populated by high income folks with plenty of coins in their jeans. And those with the coins should stop and ponder whether or not their own children will have as many coins in their jeans when they become adults and are seeking their first home in the West or if they will have to leave the West and go back where their parents came from initially if they wish to own a home.
Perhaps hind sight is better than foresight and we should have locked the gates long ago! Or perhaps we can now just follow China's example and see to it that population growth is restricted by the government?
I certainly don't know what all the answers might be but it is a difficult test of tolerance not to notice that the "newcomers" who have created many of these problems in the West are often the most self-righteous in their attempts to "solve" it!
Go figure, huh?!
I appreciate your take on the situation. I implore others to look at their position on growth and question their motivations. The mindset that a "new" individuals motivations are some how second class compared to an "native's" is often deeply hypocritical. The "me but not you" mentality in many of the west's towns, cities, and counties is problem and almost always widens the gap in housing costs.
Restricting growth, restricts supply, and as such prices increase....simple economics, but quickly overlooked by politics.
I'm trying to connect the dots re your references to "new" and "native". I think of a "native" as those of us who were bred, born and raised in the West ~ some who can count generations before us with roots firmly planted in the West.
That is not a statement about good, bad or indifferent ~ it is just a factual distinction or definition.
Those types of "natives" did NOT lock the doors and prohibit the rush into the West by out-of-state people living here now nor did we attempt to prohibit them from building or buying a home here when they arrived ~ which has been going on for decades, of course.
However, those now at the forefront of the movement to restrict growth are, for the most part, coming from what us "natives" might call "transplants" themselves who are wishing to close the gates of the West ... now that THEY have arrived.
So I do wonder if it has ever crossed their minds that THEY would not be here in the West if true "natives" had taken the same attitude toward them. It appears to be this group of "transplants" that are saying that now they "have theirs" they would like to take/curtail private property belonging to other people without regard for the fact that if they truly wanted so much "open space" they should never have used an acre of it to build their own house! Amazing how that works, don't you think? ... "I've got mine so to hell with the rest of the world!"
But it is, for the most part, those "transplants" who are often the ones who are deeply hypocritical ... not the true for-real "natives" ... which was the thought in my mind behind my comment "Perhaps hind sight is better than foresight and we should have locked the gates long ago!"
Maybe that is an unimportant distinction but I don't think so!
And, as most of us "natives" do know, there IS no way to lock the gates to the West!!!
We can make it so very expensive that only "certain people" can AFFORD to move to the West ~ and our children and grandchildren will have to move elsewhere ~ but we will never be able to stop the flow of traffic.
.... or so it certainly seems to me ....
I would concede that often it's "transplants" that want to shut the doors to the West. Often that "I've got mine" view is presented as the position of the "natives" when actually those that grew up in the West know how necessary commerce and change are to our future. Of course there are exceptions to both....
The addictive nature of inflating property values is also to blame for high prices. The more growth is restricted the more prices increase. Increasing prices is an insentive to those that already own property to fight affordable housing and continue the march of "equity".
The uphill battle is finding cities and counties where leaders are in place that understand that existing property holders within their city or county are insentivized to fight development. The long term affordable housing problem (which may never be completely solved) is - the electorate has an insentive to elect council members and county commissioners that slow development and create (or prolong) a shortage. Slower development means faster growth of property "equity" (in the short term).
Projects get through, and the market eventually solves the problem, but it sure could be faster....
Jackson has done much the same thing. While they cluck and mourn the lack of affordable housing for the working people in the area, those folks live over the mountain in Idaho and commute. The service people who do not make enough even for that live in their vehicles or in tents in the forest. It just doesn't seem right.