A better choice for Urban Growth Area

You must have heard by now. Once again the city of Orting is requesting active farmland for an urban growth area (UGA), and wants to re-designate it to allow office parks, manufacturing, and "other industrial development". This is not something I look forward to. There are many reasons why this is a bad idea: loss of farmland, loss of quality of life, soil rarity, wildlife and fisheries impacts, aquifer recharge, congestion, flooding, pollution, etc.

Under their Comprehensive Plan, Orting is supposed to reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development, encourage development in urban areas, maintain and enhance natural resource based industries- including productive agricultural and fisheries lands, and discourage incompatible uses. This UGA request is counter to these RCW's with which Orting is required to comply.

Many are unaware of what the Growth Management Act (GMA) really does here in Washington. While the intent was to control the manner in which growth happens and prevent urban sprawl, in actuality it causes it. How so?

Each locality is required to absorb a certain amount of population growth and plan for it accordingly. A formula is used to determine how much growth each area must absorb over a given period of time. Already we have seen tremendous population growth in the Orting area, pretty much doubling in size over the last few years. Places like Tacoma were supposed to be targeted for greater urban density, thus protecting the rural areas from sprawl. But Tacoma has not absorbed the kind of growth that outlying areas have.

The reality is that towns like Orting must "sprawl" in order to continue to grow, or increase their density by building taller or increasing the number of apartments, etc.

Planners for Orting were intent on building more houses in order to attract retailers to this valley. It wasn't a well thought out approach to creating jobs and tax revenue for this kind of environment. We were left with more traffic, more people, and an increased demand for services and infrastructure. This approach was also dependant upon the overheated real estate market. (Developers were eager to get their hands on the land, turn a quick profit and go. Housing made it just in time for the "bubble" to burst, but not the retailers). And so land for "employment centers" was pretty much used up.

We have seen repeated examples of small and medium sized cities requesting UGA's to provide space for addtional growth/jobs. Puyallup and Sumner have both requested farmland in order to increase their footprint in the valley. Orting is also requesting to take 317+ acreas of farmland to provide space for warehouses and light industry.

Over the last few decades, other cities have taken this path and what used to be a tremendous bread basket in the Northwest has been reduced to traffic congested warehousing, strip malls, office parks, etc. I grant that these facilities offer job opportunities, but their placement on farmland is not a good thing. We are about to find out what it is really going to cost us to not have the fertile valleys anymore. You may have noticed the rapidly rising cost of food lately. It is only the begining.

The requested UGA is part of the Alderton/McMillan Community Plan area. For a number of years, "stakeholders" met to discuss the community plan of this unincorporated area. "Stakeholders" included representatives of industry (think railroad, gravel, etc), developers, reps fom Sumner and Orting, and a few people who actually reside in the plan area (imagine that). While Sumner and Orting are outside the plan area, they abut the plan area and thus were included in the conversation. I attended these meetings faithfully.

I t was my experience that the main interest of the cities was to ensure that they could still get their hands on additional land. For developers and industry, their main interest was in making money. For one person, the main interest was in protecting the neighborhoods and rural environment from inappropriate development.

A result of this process was the setting aside of some farmland as Agricultural Resource Lands (ARL) to keep them from development, and the use of a purchase or transfer of development rights program. This was because the valley soils are very rare and important. Unfortunately, it came so late that much of the farmland has already been lost to development. That is why what is left must be protected.

The 317+ acres that Orting is requesting includes land which has been set aside as ARL and is actively farmed and productive.
There is other land that is not actively farmed that could be used for an UGA to the South of town.
The question that needs to be asked is- Which choice is best in the long run? Should Orting be allowed to develop the land that is most actively farmed and productive, or should they go for the land that holds a pre-existing employment center (Baxter/Hobart plant) and fallow land already slated for development?
Each location is next to the city and it wouldn't take much to bring in city water and sewer to each site. I believe it likely that in the future the city will request the area to the South anyway for additional development.

It seems obvious that Orting should be requesting the land to the South of town by the Hobart/Baxter plant for this kind of development instead of trying once again to take away productive farmland. I know that some landowners would gain quite a windfall with the sale of their farmland as commercial property instead and they would find themselves happily on their way. But those of us who remain here would be stuck with the aftermath- additional traffic, loss of quality of life, loss of farmland, loss of the rural nature of the area. In truth it is a loss of a natural resource that cannot be replaced.

Be aware that developers come in, remove the topsoil, sell it, and replace it with fill. Then they sell their buildings. The land cannot be farmed again, even if you tear down the buildings, because the good soil is gone.

Why do you live here? What draws people to this valley? What is it that you like about this community? Will that be enhanced or damaged by the decision to create an UGA out of the farmland to the West of town? Is that really the best choice, the best decision for the city of Orting to make? Is it something that we really want to have happen?

This doesn't only affect those who reside within city limits- after all, this is county land in question. My conversations with locals show that it is not in the best interest of the residents who live nearby or within the city. The right place for this is to the South of town where the land has an existing employment center, the land is not farmed, and is already up for development.

Since it is county land in question, the county will decide if they'll allow this to happen. If you are not enthused by this prospect, please let the County Council know. The County Council is holding hearings this month (May) for UGA amendments and will be forwarding their recommendations by July.

The Planning Commission hearing will be on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 at 7 pm in the public meeting room at the Pierce County Public Services Building -2401 S 35th St Tacoma. You can testify there or provide written comments. The Commission will make final recommendations at a hearing scheduled for June 22. At that point, no public testimony will be taken.

Time is of the essence on this. If you care about maintaining a rural environment and the quality of life that we enjoy now, you need to act.

You may provide written comments to Planning and Land Services, Long Range Planning, 2401 S 35 St, Room 228, Tacoma WA 98409. You will need to reference the following: Urban Growth Area Amendment- U-2, City of Orting: Employment Center (EC) southwest of city.

Peace to You
Patty Villa