|
Lancaster lessons
8/11/2010 10:44:08 AM
They are a family who arrived in Liberty Lake long before color TVs or men walking on the moon. Nearly a year ago, they asked Spokane County if they could change the zoning on their lakeside family parcel and subdivide to allow for in-fill development. The Lancasters eventually received a condition-laden approval, and the methodology the county used to grant it is still being wrangled over in a lengthy appeal process. The chain of events that got us from there to here was rarely pretty and involved overlapping and sometimes emotional issues. Here are three takeaways:
1. This was never about the Lancasters.
With only a couple of exceptions, it was refreshing to see opponents of the rezoning aim their frustrations at alleged consequences of the decision and not at the applicants themselves. The Lancaster family is not some shady professional developer trying to slide under the radar to make a buck. The family has a history of respecting the lake and taking pride in the community. Let the record show - and we believe that it does - that the Lancasters are advocates and neighbors, not adversaries.
2. The current zoning is an end run around the law - and that makes it unreliable.
Every parcel in the Lancasters' neighborhood on the north side of Liberty Lake has a zoning that is incompatible with its actual land use. At the onset of the Growth Management Act, the urban areas around the lake were zoned rural, ostensibly to protect from types of development that would be harmful to the lake and surrounding hillsides. Although the law intended that urban areas be labeled as such, political pressures aimed at lake protection (as well as in opposition to incorporation) prevailed. Since that time (and often during hearings relating to the Lancaster decision), officials familiar with the law have scratched their heads as to why the zoning of "Liberty Lake south" borders on disingenuous.
Advertisement
Perhaps an ideal zoning structure doesn't exist, but a setup that sidesteps the spirit of the growth management law for ulterior political purposes is always going to suffer from shaky reliability. The Lancaster debate has only helped to bolster this sentiment.
3. Progress looks inward as well as out.
The Lancaster conversation has led to a lot of debate about government's role, government regulations or which government might be more favorable than another. While all discussions have their place, they are incomplete without individual convictions being practiced and not just preached. Some of the greatest strides in lake protection have been self-imposed and educational, whether it be choosing a phosphorus-free fertilizer or donating time and money to continue the Central Valley School District's environmental education program at Liberty Lake County Park.
Perhaps future action steps will include improved stormwater solutions for neighborhoods around the lake or the expansion or creation of programs such as Conservation Futures to purchase and protect the hillsides that surround it. Both of these would require citizen initiative and participation, not just government action.
But if political and legal wrangling are where watershed protection passions begin and end; if apathy and ignorance reign when it comes to making individual sacrifices for the future of the lake - then we'll lose this battle by not being willing to fight it on all fronts.