Swing,
I think you misunderstood me on the roads. My problem isn't so much with road impact fees, it is with encouraging growth where there are no resources. Pierce County does this with a bunch of policies. One is higher fees in closer and lesser fees out farther. The idea is that the one in closer impacts high traffic zones more. That is true, but the result is that more people move out farther, and then, as you said, so does commerce.
Another motivation to move out farther are the combination of subdivision improvements and maximum lot sizes. To make a division work, the developer is required to install sidewalks, parks, wider roads, at the same time is required to build smaller lots. The result is small lots at high costs and low permination. Little things like no sidewalks or on only one side of the road, 30 foot right of ways and no parks would result in larger lots sizes and more permability. The same amount of land being developed, just better enviormentally. As it is, every new home already pays a park impact for new parks and park infastructure. A furter result is that if you want a new home with a lot bigger than 4200 sq ft, you are pushed out farther into the country. There is a huge influx of huge, luxery homes on 5 to 20 acre lots that went on in the last 5 years. Most of these people would have been happy on a 1/2 lot, but there is no such thing allowed in the new zoning code. As a result, they bought up weyerhauser land (subdivion allowed under the democrates) and will continue to do so. We used a little used provision that allowed us to subdivide 38 acres in to one acre lots and keep the remaining 30 acres in open space. There is a creek that runs through the open space and deer run freely. If most of the county officals had their way, the provision would not have been allowed and we would have been kept to 4- 10 acre lots with only a small wetland buffer. The area would have been cleared, fenced, roads punched in, and the habitat destroyed. We were able to use joint driveways off the existing road and our impact is going to be negliable with twice the density. Weryerhauser could have done the same thing, but the provisions only allow up to 8 lots and encourage large lot divisions. So, they gated off several thousand acres, used the same poorly designed, gravel roads, and sold them off as 20 acre lots.


I tried to point out that this was going to happen to the county growth officals, but all they could see was a lower density. Less people is better right? At the same time they are dumping millions into an area with 3 to 4% unemployment and discouraging multifamily. They tout growth, but try to stop it at the same time. While you like to think liberals think broader, my experience says they are just as narrow thinking as most conservatives. They are convinced that sewers, wider roads and smaller lots are the greatest thing, then start panicking about recharge, not seeing a possible connect between the two.

My opinion is that the hard right does focus on one aspect, but the radical left does the same thing, just in a different fashion. They try to take the enviroment on as a whole, but leave out the human aspect entirely. Economic impact don't matter, direct cost doesn't matter, effects on standard of living don't matter, human nature is ignored. As Todd implied, people who have children have no regard for enviroment. Everyone should be a gay vegan living in a downtown seattle condo, walk to work and be happy paying 90% of there wages to the govenment.

Both sides have extremes and neither are favorable.