Tumwater poised to hurt its budget and make housing less affordable
Updated: Sep 4
At its meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 3, the Tumwater City Council will decide whether to support keeping the BAR Holdings/Salish Landing urban growth area (UGA) swap on Thurston County’s comprehensive plan docket.
Over 440 people have signed a petition opposing the development. If you care about affordability, consider giving public comment at Tuesday’s 7 p.m. city council meeting. Attend in person or register with Zoom by 6:45 p.m.
Two problems should most concern council members. First, the council has been told that groundwater contamination may be coming from septic systems at the Melody Pines and Village Green manufactured home parks to the north and that extending sewer to BAR Holdings would solve this by allowing those 90 homes to hook up. This idea originated with the BAR Holdings developers, one of whom owns a well-drilling business.
No evidence of contamination has been shown. Even if there were evidence, largely fixed income homeowners there have no practical ability to pay for sewer hookups, which often cost tens of thousands of dollars per home. The city subsidizes sewer hookups in certain circumstances. But connecting 90 households would require several million dollars in public subsidy, which may be beyond what Tumwater is willing to pay.
Even more important: sewer service is essentially already at those 90 homes because it runs to the neighboring Bradbury development. Thus, BAR Holdings is unnecessary. Worse, the development itself would likely harm groundwater. It would pave over 33 acres of “critical aquifer recharge area—extreme” next to the groundwater-dependent Deschutes River. This poses a threat to salmon runs, according to a county hydrology report.
A second problem is that the development is a legal nonstarter. UGA swaps are resource intensive for cities. Pursuing it would waste taxpayer dollars. As in the case of the Davis Meeker oak, this UGA swap is likely to be overturned in court because it does not conform to statutory requirements.
Residents’ tax dollars would be better spent creating a vibrant urban core.
The development would reduce affordability
Supporters present BAR Holdings as a way to increase housing supply and improve affordability. But that idea is based on a misunderstanding of Washington’s growth management framework.
Under the Growth Management Act, UGAs function like a belt around a city. Outside stays rural; inside is where urban density goes.
The BAR Holdings proposal would add development capacity to the Tumwater UGA at the far outer fringe: it would swap unbuildable parcels out (near Black Lake) and swap
buildable parcels in (at the corner of Old Highway 99 and 93rd Avenue).
Thurston County’s Buildable Lands Report shows that Tumwater’s UGA already has 20% more development capacity than it needs to accommodate population growth for the next 20 years. Adding even more development capacity will not increase housing supply.
If a bathtub isn’t filling quickly because the faucet is slow, making the tub bigger doesn’t make the faucet run faster. The central constraint in Tumwater is not lack of land — i.e., it has a big enough bathtub. The central constraint is lack of housing production — i.e., a slow faucet. Housing production depends on financing, labor, infrastructure and market conditions.
Instead of increasing housing supply, BAR Holdings would add unnecessary development capacity to the UGA’s fringe. This would shift new housing away from the urban core. That means 200 apartment units filled with people who will need cars to drive farther to jobs and schools.
Additionally, it would likely displace low-income people at the 90 homes at Melody Pines and Village Green because the land beneath those homes would become much more valuable to investors.
The location cannot be served by frequent transit
BAR Holdings is located outside Tumwater’s transit service area. Transit in Tumwater primarily serves the Capitol Way/state office corridor. Planning research generally finds that residential densities need to be seven to 12 units per acre along bus routes to support frequent transit service. The airport between the state offices and BAR Holdings contains no housing and will not reach densities of seven to 12 units per acre because housing cannot be built on an airport.
As a result, frequent transit service to the site is not likely for the foreseeable future. Thus, residents would be functionally auto-dependent for the long-term.
That means higher transportation costs, longer commutes, and greater household vulnerability to fuel price spikes. Low-income households already spend a disproportionate share of income on transportation. Housing affordability is not just about rent or mortgage payments. Real affordability equals housing cost + transportation + infrastructure + time. Fringe development may lower construction costs, but it increases the other three costs.
Sprawl is expensive for cities
A UGA swap would also be bad for Tumwater’s budget over the long term. Low density, fringe development costs more per household to serve compared to when cities grow compactly. Cities must provide and maintain sewer and water systems, stormwater facilities, roads, police and fire coverage, parks, solid waste services, and school capacity.
Impact fees at the time of construction help, but they seldom cover the full lifecycle costs of infrastructure. Most residential development does not fully pay for itself over its lifecycle. That leads to higher utility rates, higher local taxes and fees, deferred maintenance, or reduced services.
Meanwhile, if the swap were to happen, the developers who bought the 33 acres of forestland at BAR Holdings for a mere $400,000 would be sitting on land worth millions of dollars more. If instead the swap is denied, the land stays outside the UGA and they can build only one house per five acres.
A better path for Tumwater
If Tumwater wants to improve affordability and protect its fiscal health, it should:
Focus housing growth inside the existing UGA and remove barriers to infill and redevelopment
Encourage higher density housing near jobs and services
Invest directly in housing affordable to low-income households
Avoid expanding service areas unless a true capacity shortfall exists
Tumwater City Council should not support keeping the BAR Holdings/Salish Landing UGA swap on the county’s docket. The proposal would raise costs for residents, strain the city’s budget, and move Tumwater in the wrong direction.
Additional documents and analysis regarding the proposal’s impacts are available here.
Comments