The politics of growth
Raphael Barta
I recently attended a candidates forum where county commissioner seats and state legislature seats were on the agenda. Every candidate addressed the issue of growth in multiple questions, from different perspectives like quality of life, budgetary impacts, and cultural concerns. Growth issues dominated the event. For the past several years, Idaho has been the fastest-growing state in the U.S. In 2024, Florida took first place with Idaho second, but after the recent weather calamities the Sunshine State has gone through, that trend has become dampened. Hurricanes Helene and Milton were two of the most expensive hurricanes on record. The Small Business Administration’s disaster loan program, often the biggest source of federal disaster recovery funds for individual survivors, is on the brink of insolvency, and FEMA will face a funding crunch by the end of this year. The White House has petitioned Congress for more funds. Private insurance companies are abandoning high risk areas like coastal floodplains and places prone to large-scale fires.
A lot of the “climate proof” locations have been debunked (e.g. North & South Carolina) leaving Idaho (North Idaho) as one of the safest places to be. So, Growth is going to accelerate for us here. The consensus of the candidate forum was that growth needs to be managed. This is of course an empty phrase that doesn’t deal with the short-term urgencies or the long-term implications of growth. The candidates all wanted to reassure their constituency that the North Idaho way of life won’t erode, that all the newcomers will seamlessly blend in, that things won’t change, growth notwithstanding.
Meanwhile, municipal and county planning departments, police and fire and emergency services, road maintenance operations, sewer and water and electricity providers, are overwhelmed trying to accommodate all the new demands. Growth does not come in a steady predictable stream: it is unevenly distributed across the North Idaho geography, and it is varied as to age, education and wealth segmentation. The initial impacts are on housing availability and affordability, and medical services. Downstream impacts are on parks and schools, and other community amenities and services. Property taxes alone cannot cover the budgets required for ongoing maintenance of what’s already there, much less provide for new infrastructure.
Impact fees help offset the increased demand but impact fees make sense to developers when the densities are higher, and this creates political friction: the folks who love the rural way of life don’t want to see a 20-acre parcel become 40 half-acre suburban lots. Each county in North Idaho and the various towns and cities has a Comprehensive Plan that dictates zoning and densities. These plans are not set in stone, and need continual revision to keep pace with the changing conditions North Idaho has to deal with. These are good problems to have: there are many areas of the U.S. turning into ghost towns, and momentum is a powerful force. We (and the various candidates for office) worry about managing growth but the opposite case is far worse.
• • •
Raphael Barta is an associate broker with an active practice in residential, vacant land and commercial/investment properties (raphaelb@sandpoint.com).
