Casualties of success

We all love to complain about petty bureaucrats and regulations. They are quite annoying sometimes. I have been on both sides of the counter on this issue. I can tell you that it is sometimes not easy or pleasant to enforce standards, code and regulations; or tell someone that they can’t do something that they had their heart set on.

As Americans, we like to tout our freedoms and independence. However, many times what makes communities unique and desirable (or undesirable) are the standards by which a community lives. Sometimes these self-imposed standards are painful and take years of adjustment (and refinement), but having a consensus vision within a community helps everyone through those times. When the community vision starts materializing, is the most dangerous time.

People start taking success for granted. Good examples of this are environmental regulations and the Growth Management Act (GMA) in Washington State.

Rivers in the industrial eastern states were catching fire (Cuyahoga River) due to pollution in the 60s. In the 1980s in Washington State, fertile farmlands were being paved over for commercial and industrial development. The Kent Valley prior to the 70s was a “bread basket” for Seattle. It’s now the “shopping basket” for western Washington.

Once paved over, fertile farmlands are gone for good. California’s version of this is “Silicon Valley” (Santa Clara Valley). Santa Clara Valley with several feet of top soil was the “bread basket” for the Bay Area. It’s now Google’s main campus along with many other tech giants.

In the 1980s, Washington citizens were extremely concerned that California style sprawl and unplanned development would compromise vital Washington natural resource lands. Prior to the passing of GMA in 1990, there were several growth regulatory plans being proposed. It was very contentious in Olympia at that time. After much hand wringing, GMA was finally agreed upon.

For sure, it was a compromise and flawed. But with many refinements along the way, GMA is actually accomplishing most of its intention. There are still issues to be sure, but we still have viable farm and forestlands in western Washington.

This modest success and stability have spawned new threats to GMA. Complacence. The angst that created GMA is gone. The economic arguments for developing resource lands are gaining traction with politicians. The success of GMA has eliminated much of the fear associated with wanton development.

As with environmental regulations for air and water, these successes are being taken for granted. With the exception of a vocal minority, the general public has shown less concern regarding efforts to deregulate and are being swayed by economic arguments.

The only acceptable arguments to alter environmental or GMA regulation should be to enhance the original intent of the regulation, not to subvert it. The only economic argument that should have traction are those to lessen the cost of regulation and enforcement, not eliminate it.

When someone makes the argument to eliminate regulation to improve their economic venture, ask yourself: what is the true value of permanent loss? This casualty of success may be the future of farming and forestry in Skagit County.