The Democratic Party ought to be listening

Democratic policy wonks who are serious about regaining a decision-making role at the local & national level ought to be paying attention to stories like this one: 'Critical areas ordinance' provokes  bitter 'rural vs. urban' dispute.

The story itself ignores the substance of the ordinance and focusses on the politics; so unless you have been following the issue, you have no idea what the 'Critical areas ordinance' specifically does. And I have to confess that even though I am fairly knowledgeable about these issues -- I served on the very first "environmentally-sensitive areas" advisory committee in the City of Seattle -- I don't know about this specific ordinance. (The P-I brushes readers off to King County's site.) While I am skeptical of property owners who claim wipe-out, I am also skeptical of environmentalists who claim end-of-the-world.

You can easily argue (and maybe the facts justify the calim) that Democrats will never win over the rural red voters anyway so why bother. But let's put principles first: needless bureaucracy and maximum regulation is not a core value of the Democratic party. We need environmental regulation. But the Democratic Party needs -- as part of its self-examination and rebuilding -- to develop a principle of the least regulation to get the job done.

As I say, I specifically do not know the merits or demerits of this particular critical areas ordinance. But I do know well the similar ordinance in the City of Seattle and I can state without equivocation that it is precisely those parts of it which are over-reaching and irrational -- the "steep slopes" provisions -- which in fact raise the ire of many citizens. So it would not shock me if the case were generally the same in King County.

But the larger issue is that the Democratic Party has to start paying some real attention to the complaints of the regulated because not all the complaints of developers and landowners are just a matter of "greed." There is a lot of stupid and pointless regulation out there which serves no one but the government functionaries. Environmentalists and urbanists don't like to hear such talk. But it's true. There is a lot of regulation -- and I am specifically speaking of Seattle land use regulation -- which really doesn't actually advance the interests of building better cities but is indeed a general drag on life and the economy.

So in the coming debate of whither the Democratic Party, let's make sure that the issue of over-regulation -- what it is and what to do about it -- is on the table and not left to the right-wing kooks of the Republican Party.

Liberty is more of a Democratic core-value than regulation.

More: The critical cultural divide in rural King County.

UPDATE: Others are also thinking on this issue.

Stentor Danielson offers:

But for more cumulative issues, like forestry, that's not enough. For practical and moral reasons, the cooperation of the locals is critical. Protecting the nation's public lands will require a much more sophisticated outreach (and listening) than simply pointing out that "conservation" and "conservative" have the same first ten letters. Some of the groundwork is already there, as rural conservatives begin to recognize that their representatives are selling out their quality of life to corporate interests. But the emergence of right-wing environmentalism is stymied by the perception that environmentalists are urban elitists -- a perception fueled by spillover of vitriol (on the part of both parties) from other issues such as gay rights.

Comments

[Desmond Bliek]

Interesting article, and good point in observing that even judging conservative politicians by their own rhetoric and the interests of their own bases of support, they're doing a lousy job, and selling out ordinary folks.

In Alberta (Canada's most right-wing province- the government of which has pledged to do everything possible to fight any upcoming federal endorsements of same-sex marriage), an eminently-regarded deeply conservative former political leader and commentator, Preston Manning, has speculated on the emergence of a conservative environmentalist movement as the 'next big thing' in Alberta politics. (See the Globe and Mail of 2004-09-10, unfortunately not freely available). We tend to give governments virtually absolute power for up to about 30 years, and then switch to something completely different (though usually not the established opposition, as Manning notes).

Thought it was an interesting parallel, and shows that conservatives and liberals actually have a lot more in common, particularly in their relationship with landscape, than they often think. You have to wonder, do most conservatives actually like living amidst big boxes and superhighways, or have their representatives sold out the small towns they seek to re-create.

Enjoyable reading, as always...

Desmond Bliek

[Michael Meckler]

I think the political identification of Democrat=tree-hugger is more of a western phenomenon. Here in Franklin County, Ohio, we just had an election in which a longtime Republican county commissioner lost her seat, giving Democrats control over county government for the first time in two decades. One of the issues in the race was development, but it was the Democrats who were pro-growth and the Republicans who were slow-growth. A couple of years ago, the Republican county commissioners pulled the county out of the regional planning commission because of township anger over the annexation and development policies of the City of Columbus. The Republicans were also hesitant to tear down the minor-league ballpark (the team is owned by the county) on Columbus' westside to replace it with a downtown stadium tied to commercial and residential development. Although there are Democrats in the city who are slow-growth environmentalists, they have been marginalized, and their leader resigned this year from City Council in disgust at his ineffectiveness. The Democrat-controlled city government (all city council members and the mayor are Democrats) has made repeated attempts to chip away at environmental planning guidelines, especially in wetlands and greenfields. So the comments that most Democrats wish to hinder development and place environmental concerns over property rights do not ring true for Central Ohio.

[Jen Halliday]

King County's Critical Area Ordinance states that for lots 5 acres or under, 50% of the land must remain in it's native state. For lots larger than 5 acres, only 35% of the land may be developed in any way.

The King County critical areas page is here:

http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/cao/index.htm

So, if you own rural land in King County, on at least half of your land you can't pasture animals, grow vegetables, plant fruit trees, build a barn, nothing. At this time, you don't get any kind of a tax break on the land you aren't allowed to use.

In the King county council, the vote for or against this ordinance went along party lines. Democrats for and Republicans against. This makes Democrats in general pretty unpopular in the rurals areas throughout western WA. I know that here in rural Whatcom county, we were just apalled to see that ordinance pass.