This editorial refers to a guest editorial columneditorial column written by Brandon Houskeeper and published in the Feb. 19 edition of The Reporter.

I agree with Mr. Houskeeper that regulations add to the cost to a home. But there needs to be a more honest dialogue about the balance of such regulation and its relation to our overall quality of life. Unfortunately the editorial contribution of Mr. Houskeeper simply fires a volley of anti-regulatory sentiment, joined with overly simplistic examples to emphasis his point.

I don’t think Mr. Houskeeper is advocating that we take away any and all regulatory costs. Or that we should decide to let anybody, build anything, anywhere they want to build it. But if so, and if that that is his point, then I suspect that when a new county garbage dump goes in across the street from Mr. Houskeepers neighborhood, he might start to rethink his anti-regulation editorials.

But honestly, I don’t think Mr. Houskeeper would want to eliminate all fees and regulations related to building, which is why I think it is very dishonest to use examples of saving $68,000 to $200,000 on a $400,000 home to otherwise make it affordable, if only we could get a better handle on over regulation.

The honest approach, using his $400,000 home example, is to say at a bare minimum of acceptable regulation you might have 5 percent of a home’s cost related to fees, permits and regulations. And in a sales tax state, you have another 8 to 9 percent related to sales and use taxes. So in an honest dialogue we will always start the dialogue about any excessive state government and regulatory costs after the 10 percent to 14 percent level.

So using Mr. Houskeeper own numbers we currently have studies that say between 17 percent and 50 percent of a homes price here is related to state and government regulations.

If it is indeed 17 percent – then we are not so far off the lowest regulatory costs we need to assure public safety and good building and land use practices. If we are really closer to the higher 50 percent figure that he sites then maybe we have to talk more about our goals and priorities.

But still to be honest – the goal isn’t a full 50 percent reduction as implied; it is only the 35 percent to get us to the lowest base-level of regulatory controls. All that being said about honest examples; lets looks at the cost of regulations. In my opinion, the Growth Management Act (GMA) is the most expensive element of our states regulatory costs. The GMA is intended to preserve local rural, farm and forest lands, it’s meant to help improve water quality, and to focus growth primarily in areas with public services (schools, garbage, water, sewer) and closer to transportation routes.

But the GMA doesn’t make building costs more expensive directly; the GMA makes the land underneath more expensive. That in turn, often leads to multi-family units, smaller lot sizes and overall greater population density. In turn, density helps tax-funded public services (schools, garbage, water and sewer) and transportation function well. Many of these public services are dependent on density for their ultimate feasibility.

Mr. Houskeeper editorial dismisses the GMA as a simple “protecting the environment” issue. In the end GMA means we don’t have unsustainable sprawl – houses, apartments and strip malls from the sound to the foothills. It builds and supports our essential public services, rather than dispersing them widely. It helps focus and maximize the use of our tax dollars for transportation, facilities and other major infrastructure.

No plans are perfect and perhaps we need to look at our regulations and determine how we might reduce our expenses. But we’ll also have to have an honest dialogue about regulation and costs. In the end it’s a complex balance and we need to work better and together to determine what we are willing to pay to get what we really want to see.