The Information Auditor

Democracy is a process that citizens must learn and exercise in our regulatory republic (we live in a country of rules, regulations, and laws more so than in a 'democracy'). We cannot take for granted that democracy is a condition of life made, or even guaranteed, by our government. Democracy is not made by, in, or with our government and our government is not the means through which acts of democracy are made. Ultimately, it is not government's responsibility to protect it for us; it is our responsibility. Democracy is not an ideal to reach, not a sacred word enshrined in our Founding documents (the word does not even appear in our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights). Democracy is a verb and it means engagement, activism, and persistence whenever political or social change is necessary. Democracy means bringing together like-minds for political and social change through legal means. The framework for doing democracy is first to see that our political lives are bounded by rules and regulations, more so than whomever is merely elected to office; and second, we must find ways to affect change directly on the authorization environments responsible for those rules and regulations.

As the presidential election season grinds on, and we hear our peers complaining about one candidate’s ideas about taxes and another’s about Iraq, remember that local governing bodies impact our lives far more than any president. For example, county governments, as in the case of King County and its conflict with Maple Valley, have a huge impact on the citizens more so than whomever becomes President --or even the governor --a political reality ignored by many us.

I see democracy as a dynamic social system driven by public reaction to rules, regulations, and laws. To me the implication of this is that voting is a very small part of being a responsible citizen involved in our common governance. So, to affect social and political change, we must do more than just pay attention to or even vote in presidential elections. Doing democracy is about taking action for change and it can be expressed in many ways: consider those non-profits that take on social problems, these are great examples of doing democracy (and not just quaint ideas of social activism or charity).

Technorati Tags:
maple valley, suburbs, community development, urban planning,
information audit, knowledge management, knowledge-management, information management, software engineering, information technology, information-technology, Internet, e-government, egov, Government IT.

A quote from James Howard Kunstler's Home from Nowhere:

Most urban areas “…suffer from density deficits. There are not enough people living, or business activities, at the core to maintain the synergies necessary for civic light…. The New Urbanism calls for higher density….. The New Urbanism models…the traditional American Town” (113).

Kunstler’s nuanced and vitriolic essay searches for an escape from soul-killing, suburban mediocrity. His pain is reminiscent of the 1960 Twilight Zone episode “A Stop at Willoughby”, where a desperate 38 year old Gart Williams visits a serene, idyllic small town of Willoughby where ‘a man can slow down to walk and live his life full measure’. Unfortunately, Willoughby was merely a dream and Gart leapt from his commuter train to his death in search of that richer civic life. Do Willoughbys make people happy? Kunstler thinks so; his thesis depends on the idea of environmental determinism in which the places we live shape our well-being. Thus, living in my suburban city, my spiritual life is deprived because I can’t walk down shady lane in a faux village of mixed-use buildings to a yarn shop. I can safely refute his diagnosis of my soul’s welfare.

Although he appears to be a John the Baptist calling out the sinners to redemption, his criticism of sprawl and alienation by urbanization is not new. It can easily be traced back to the late 1800’s and shows up in neighborhood designs in the 1920’s. He relies on superficial stereotypes and vitriol that becomes shrill and annoying and altogether shows his mastery of shallow reasoning and ignorance of history. He should know suburban sprawl developments did not originate with the devil nor funded by the First National Bank of the Antichrist. And that the suburb and its promise of single-family home ownership became a kind of birthright to white Americans may have had less to do with the advent of the automobile than the improvements in and lowered costs for building materials and technologies to deliver on that demand.

Density is as much a solution in some cases as it is a potential problem in others. That neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population is laudable but hardly realistic everywhere; such will appeal to some but not all people, leaving community development planners struggling to find a balance through experimentation. The author would better serve us with more humility, acknowledging he does not have the answers.

Does New Urbanism hope for idyllic urban lifestyles that fits our fantasies of today, ignoring the potential negative effects of such pursuits on development in the future?

What should we reasonably expect from this notion of the Public Realm (36)? Do all people need civic connection; or, is that yet a choice that people need to make on their own (and that’s OK)?

How useful is this book in influencing dialog with people with opposing views? Or, is it better suited for ammunition of tired, predictable critiques of the shortcomings of suburban life?

Technorati Tags:
maple valley, suburbs, community development, urban planning,
information audit, knowledge management, knowledge-management, information management, software engineering, information technology, information-technology, Internet, e-government, egov, Government IT.

Some Conclusions:

The City acted with appropriate and effective ways to get people involved. Although getting information on or access to any minutes of any negotiations between itself and the County are not readily available, or known. The City used council meetings, interviews in newspapers, special meetings and its website effectively to create interest among the public from the beginning of the controversy (for example, over 600 people “signed an online petition asking the County to include the city in discussion of its plans for the site”).

The problem is a conflict over growth within the city limits of Maple Valley, which challenges its local autonomy and authority. In some ways, the City was set up for this problem by drawing its boundary around a large, rurally zoned plot on which it had no jurisdiction. One of the City's officials I spoke with indicated that the plot was “originally proposed for inclusion in the City but the County insisted the area be excluded from the City on the basis that they had a gravel mining operation there (resource extraction) and they wanted to keep it a rural land for the long term” (making Ron Sims’ claim on Weekday either misinformed, or misleading).

Although the County’s actions have the appearance of acting unilaterally, and further complicate things by effectively changing the rules of the game by re-zoning the plot from rural to urban, King County appears to act consistent to its vision and mandate to contain suburban sprawl and preserve as much as possible the rural feel of South East King County. The complicated land swap, which it proposed, should be encouraged and favored by all parties as it preserves unique parcels of land for future generations and corrals urban growth into areas already designated as such. But the County clearly fails to win the battle for public opinion. It is to wonder why they are failing to take a more accommodating approach to the problem: the fear of great impact of further urban density on the City, whether realistic or not, is the predominate opinion among the Maple Valley City Council, its government, and those residents who are concerned with the issue.

Given that the County reversed its policy of a no-bid deal with Yarrow Bay and opened the sale to RFP was a positive step toward transparency (the deal with the lobbyist, though not illegal, just evokes the sense it was crooked –a tremendous miscalculation on the County’s part). The City won a battle but it is still loosing a war: so far, Yarrow Bay is the only bidder! What Maple Valley should consider is that its image of a rural and simple community should be reconsidered. The sense of ruralism was not the doing of the City government but had more to do with the GMA and the County’s implementation of it. The City’s vision to “preserve its rural roots” in the midst explosive residential growth is likely not possible in a UGA (which the City more-or-less was prior to incorporation). The narrow roads are slammed with commuters everyday and the schools are filled to beyond capacity. The migration to the City continues by young families, flocking to the area for its inexpensive houses. The adherence to a rural roots vision limits the City’s options in this case and must change for its own good. And it is changing: for example, the City’s ban of big-box store development (recently reversed) and zoning primarily for residential units, created a dependence on developer fees as a major source of revenue --limiting its options in how to deal with the Donut Hole as it represents an opportunity cost forgone in the plans of the County.

What the two parties might consider is compromising in order to avoid a legal showdown (in which the City would bring and most likely lose, creating more animosity). For instance, could the County be convinced to re-zone the plot under 1997 growth estimates (when the plot should have been annexed to the city) than heavier 2008 estimates? Could the City change its vision of it being a growing, densely populated one, rather than a rural enclave, and see added population as a positive thing? The City might also consider framing arguments in terms of the King County Comprehensive Plan pointing out that if the development becomes higher-density apartments on the Donut Hole then the City should get more bus services, a new transit center, and be compensated by the County for road improvements along the main arterials.

Technorati Tags:
maple valley, suburbs, community development, urban planning,
information audit, knowledge management, knowledge-management, information management, software engineering, information technology, information-technology, Internet, e-government, egov, Government IT.

How Maple Valley Frames the Issue.
The boiled-down issue here is a conflict between two growth management policy regimes over future population growth within the city limits of MV and within that portion of SE King County. The City and County view the issue differently, so much so they each refer to the plot under different names: to Maple Valley, it is the Donut Hole; to King County, it is the Summit Pit, a simple gravel pit and maintenance facility for their road repair crews. Further, both the City and the County have legitimate claims to direct the fate of the Donut Hole, but of the two, the County has the right to assign its own zoning rules on the land as well as surplus and sell it. Meanwhile, the city has a greater stake in the fate of the plot since any new development will stress city services, regardless of it being incorporated into the city.

The City is by far more motivated to engage public involvement than does the County. A strong tradition of public involvement in growth issues started in the 1990’s with the Greater Maple Valley Community Council (still in existence) and carries on with well-attended City Council meetings by residents. The situation itself, that of a new, small city challenged unilaterally by the most important and influential county in the state, also compelled interest of the news media (as will be shown later). From May and October 2007, and on into January 2008, the City held special forums in addition to regular council meetings for residents to learn about the issues as well as voice their concerns (the special forums included selected King County Council representatives).

The suspicion among many residents who attended those hearings was that the County and its sole buyer planned to build “affordable housing”, a “phrase some Maple Valley residents have taken to mean subsidized apartments”. Indeed, apartments are an anathema to the City because those users do not fit into the self-image of Maple Valley ( they are stereotyped to be lower income and transient). The City Manager’s official position was that the city should be allowed to annex the Donut Hole before it is sold. Resigned to the fact that new residential developments are likely to happen no matter whose jurisdiction the land falls, the City should at least be able to benefit from construction taxes and fees (the principle source of revenue for the City have been fees on new houses) to handle such additional, unplanned, growth. The city claimed apartments on the plot could increase Maple Valley's population by 30 percent.

The City’s official website devotes a detailed section on the Donut Hole controversy. Several points made there illustrate the City’s perspective: that the County has refused to plan development with City, which is “inconsistent with its practice to cooperate with affected jurisdictions elsewhere and is in violation of its own Countywide Planning Policies”. The City complains that the County proposed to rezone the property from rural to higher density urban that what the City is prepared for prior to sale; the County was moving too fast for the City; and, that the County was proceeding “unilaterally and prematurely without joint planning and local input taken seriously” (http://www.ci.maple-valley.wa.us/donut_hole.asp).

How the County Frames The Issue.
King County takes its growth management mandate, as derived from the State’s 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA), very seriously. It is the County’s responsibility to implement the GMA with policy tools ranging from zoning regulations to more controversial ones such as mandating so-called Urban Growth Areas (UGA’s). It also buys and sells land for preservation purposes, setting such aside from development for the benefit of current and future residents. The County Council and its Executive see themselves as the stewards for growth in the County.

A turning point of sorts in this controversy occurred with two articles by the Seattle Times’ Lauren Vane. In them are details about how the Donut Hole deal included a very complex land swap engineered by a professional lobbyist and resident of Maple Valley, Martin Durkan Jr. One of his major clients, the sole developer named in the no-bid sale, the Yarrow Bay Group, agreed to purchase a strip of 276 acres of undeveloped forestland in King County, the Icicle Creek Forest, and include it in the deal for the Donut Hole. (This is not to imply that the land swap was a secret as County press releases in August 2007 described the deal; however, the articles subtly implied something crooked going on with the connection to Mr. Durkan). The County then would have a long sought after piece of forest to preserve for the future; and raise a good amount of revenue from the sale from the (to be) re-zoned Donut Hole.

These articles prompted King County Executive Ron Sims to refute any implied accusations of inappropriate dealings in his weekly talk show appearance on KUOW’s Weekday (January 17, 2008). Sims described the articles as the first major slur on his reputation in his 22 years in public service. Although the deal seemed fishy, Sims hotly claimed it was legal and vetted by the King County Prosecutor’s office. He held that the land “was unwanted by anyone, that no body wanted to annex” it. The County’s policy was to sell the land only if there was such a land swap for unprotected, undeveloped land involved. Sims said that the Icicle Creek Forest land was “incredibly valuable land for us to control” but difficult to come by as the current owners, Palmer Coke and Coal (Black Diamond) refused previous offers from the County –until this deal.

Perhaps in part from opposition by Maple Valley residents, (supported and encouraged by the City Council and government), or from the Lauren Vane articles, the County halted the land-sale talks and opened RFP’s on the Donut Hole. At this point, the County’s official position was that they had spent two years of talking with Yarrow Bay and could not agree on a price. Now, although the Icicle Creek property may no longer be part of the deal, County policy on development remains fixed on affordable housing to be a part of all future proposals.

Technorati Tags:
maple valley, suburbs, community development, urban planning,
information audit, knowledge management, knowledge-management, information management, software engineering, information technology, information-technology, Internet, e-government, egov, Government IT.

In April 2007, the Metro King County Council announced it was negotiating with a single real-estate developer, The Yarrow Bay Group (Kirkland, WA), for the sale of a County-owned 156-acre plot (known as the ‘Donut Hole’ by Maple Valley residents) within the city of Maple Valley for residential development. The sale was immediately controversial because there was no open bid for the land (In June, 2007, the County adopted King County Ordinance 2007-0350 allowing the County Executive to bypass an open competitive sale of the Donut Hole, and authorized the Executive to negotiate a land swap and sale directly with Yarrow Bay Development. King County recently announced it would be going out for a RFP for the property) and the City had no input to the planning for the development the parcel (Lauren Vane. Gravel-site plans move forward. The Seattle Times. 1 July 2007). The County Council also stated that following the sale the County planned to have the City would annex it. What is at issue here is a conflict between two growth management policy regimes (after Crosby and Bryson) over the future of the Donut Hole. (The State could be included as a third one affecting this issue since the Growth Management Act of the 1990’s is in some way responsible for this controversy; but, for simplicity, the focus here is on Maple Valley and King County).

About The City of Maple Valley.
The City of Maple Valley, Washington, formally incorporated in 1997, became one of the region’s fastest growing cities in the State by 2006. Maple Valley governs this growth with a mayoral-city council form of government with a full time city manager. The City Manager is described (on the City’s website) as the city’s chief executive officer, responsible for overseeing all City operations. Below him are six major departments. The mission statement of the City of Maple Valley government reads:

“Maple Valley will be a well-planned City with a safe, healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment. A strong sense of community will develop through effective partnerships with community organizations, maintaining historic connections with the area's rural past….”

There is a distance between the vision of how the City wants things to be and the reality of how things are. Although the City (meaning, in this entry, the City Council and its government) invests itself with an image of being an ideal setting for young families with children in a rural setting, it has struggled with significant growth problems since the 1990’s, yet offering few satisfactory solutions. From the demand for low cost housing, the population density in the area incorporated in 1997 more than trebled since. At times resembling a suburban ghetto of dead-end cul-de-sacs and instant but bland neighborhoods, the City and many residents are vitally concerned with the future of growth. Recent statistics showed that population in the City grew 34.7% from 2000 to 2006, one of the rates highest in the state, eventually rising to 20,020 in 2007, earning the rank of 20th in population density (slightly less than Mercer Island, slightly more than Lynwood).

The City grew so fast that many urban amenities taken for granted are lacking: neighborhoods with character, road improvements, sidewalks, better storm drainage, and overcrowded schools, among other things. But exciting things are going on: a recent master planning process, which included residents, plans for a community sports field complex on 22.75 acres (starting in 2009); and a long put-off development of a city commons (planned in 2000 and yet developed) begins soon.

The voter approved City boundaries at incorporation in 1997 left King County with a 156-acre plot of land nearly in the middle of the city. Used by the County’s Department of Transportation as a maintenance center and a gravel pit (known as the Summit Pit to the County), the county also leased part of it to a golf course. In 1997, the County claimed it would not sell or develop the land, later known as the Donut Hole, and would retain it for KCDOT use. The County zoned the land as rural with a mineral extraction overlay allowing, if developed residentially, one home per 20 acres. Minus the mineral extraction, the zoning would be RA-5 that is one home for every five acres.

So, an island of zoned rural land sat within an area the County itself designated for urban density (even prior to incorporation). The growth management policy of the County put the boundary between rural and urban development in this area on a jagged north south line some miles west of highway 169: all land to the east of that was to zoned for rural density, to the east, urban (the west half of traditional Maple Valley). The City and County seem to live in peace until 2007, when the County announced intentions to reclassify and rezone the Donut Hole urban and sell it. In order to do this, the County must revise its own zoning codes, which, according details beyond the scope of this current entry, make the Donut Hole subject to commercial development, as well. If zoned urban, the property is more attractive to developers who could build from 1000 to 2,200 new housing units (either single-family homes or apartments). Such changes pre-empt any plans of the City’s for the property prior to future (and it is assumed, inevitable) annexation. From the start of the controversy, the City appeared to have no effective control over the fate of the property. By late 2007, proposals for annexation by the city prior to selling were off the table and the County refused any joint planning (according to the City --but it is not clear why). Believing the State has granted it some authority for planning in this case, the City began its own planning process in April 2008 with adjoining cities and special purpose districts for the Donut Hole’s future.

Technorati Tags:
information audit, knowledge management, knowledge-management, information management, software engineering, information technology, information-technology, Internet, e-government, egov, Government IT.