The GMA, in my opinion, is not being implemented in ways that it was intended. In theory, the act was designed to control and direct growth into areas that are best suited for it. Direct commercial commerce into logical areas that can be easily reached, have adequate infrastructure and will not adversely effect the neighborhood and natural resources. The same can be said about industry, residential, and multifamily resources. It was said to be a compromise to remove the individual rights to develop in par with the rights of the community. Much like zoning laws prohibit certian uses, the growth management act does the same but makes the rules more stable and harder to change.

That said, what I have seen is arbitrary boundaries based on community involvement, area zonings based on area without regards to enviromental constraints or economics, and a push outside the boundary by individuals who hate plats but normally would be happy with a 1/2 acre lot rather than a 50 acre lot.

In general, the Growth Management act should not limit uses that naturally fit into an area. For example, an area with 90% commerical would be zoned to allow the other 10% to be the same. An area on a busy corner would be zoned commercial with surrounding areas having lesser and lesser uses.

The actual implications of the GMA though, are often much different. They are a the direct cause of the very small lots you see, as many areas are zoned so as to require a certian number of lots. In other areas, the lines are jogged to meet requirements, regardless of what the natural and economic boundaries would dictate. They often direct growth into areas that would otherwise be left in a natural state, such as sloped or marginal land or land that is reached by traversing natural buffers. It also creates a situation where land is often developed into large lots or in ways that prevent its future, more natural and economic use.


Overall, think of it as a zoning regulation that is required by the state and created in the way to prevent short term political leanings.