Wanted: Tidy Sudoku-like solutions for Pierce County land use puzzles

Lucinda Wingard

Guest columnist

My latest addiction, Sudoku, began with innocent curiosity. Why was my husband spending so much time with that fat yellow book? I peeked inside. The thick paperback offered me some easy puzzles and set me on a path toward very hard ones — ones that can take me a couple of days to conquer.

Now sit me in front of the TV to watch the Mariners, and I reach for the Sudoku book. Why?

It’s because I like reconciling the competing needs of columns, rows and squares; it requires mental gymnastics with no risk of sore muscles; and it feels so good to finally reach the solution.

It reminds me of school. There, we were sent through a problem-solving maze, too, graduating from easy to very hard. We learned that, by applying correct problem-solving techniques, a correct solution could be achieved.

Unfortunately, in the “real world” of work, other people who are, perhaps, not quite like us, may have different ideas. Problems don’t work out so neatly. Solutions can look like disappointing compromises.

Take land use planning, for example. In the past three months, I’ve attended four hearings to offer testimony in favor of a map amendment for Pierce County.

First, I spoke in front of a panel of local volunteers, the Gig Harbor Peninsula Advisory Commission. They meet at least once a month to balance requirements of the Peninsula Comprehensive Plan, Pierce County Planning and Land Services regulations, environmental health and the requests of individual landowners.

Right, PAC faces a puzzle way more complex than reconciling Sudoku’s rows, columns and squares.

My own nervous attempts at persuasive speech aside, I was fascinated by what other people had to say. Each hearing provided me lessons in complexity that I’ll attempt to pass on.

One long-time resident of our area gave a monologue that I deem Shakespearean. He first described what our shoreline and hillsides looked like 30 and 40 years ago. Puget Sound teemed with fish, the beaches offered a banquet for shorebirds and people alike, hillsides flourished with timber, game, berries and flowers. As people moved in, these things necessarily, inevitably thinned.

And something else was happening that he couldn’t put his finger on: Some wildlife was being poisoned. Was it his cleaning detergents, landscaping practices, petroleum products, pharmaceuticals, any of the elements of modern life that humans use to raise their standard of living?

Who knows? he mused, but something was decimating the natural world, and he didn’t like it. It suggested we needed regulation to save us from ourselves.

However, fundamentally this man disagreed with government regulating what he could and couldn’t do on his land. He was a good steward of his property. He felt he could manage it well without someone far away, someone who knew less about the natural world than he did, making zoning decisions.

Then, he admitted sorrowfully, new people moving in might not be so kind to the land. Perhaps there was a role for regulation. He spread his hands with an eloquent gesture of quandary. He couldn’t arrive at a neat solution for the panel to consider.

At a later meeting, this time at the Pierce County Planning Commission, I heard the frustration of a person who bought a lovely piece of land that featured a picturesque stream. He discovered his plans to build a driveway and home are severely restricted in order to protect that stream’s health. It didn’t seem fair.

To what extent does health of native wildlife and the community’s well-being take precedent over individual rights? Is there proof that environmental disruption puts the community health at risk?

Yes, science does provide important evidence that clean water, abundant fisheries, safe recreation and attractive home sites are all at risk without some state and county regulation.

My education continued at a Community Development Committee hearing, chaired by our County Council member, Terry Lee. A family implored the County Council to save their small business. The ATV shop and track on their property kept good people employed and kids involved in a healthy pastime.

All true, but some neighbors had complained, and current zoning prevented it.

It will be up to the County Council to decide where the greater good lies.

Officials on this committee are elected to reconcile competing interests on the county zoning map. Not only that, the council must take into account changing population, new types of industry and new scientific discoveries.

Ack! A Sudoku puzzle where the grid shifts in the middle of the game? Obviously, no solution will convince everyone they got it right.

Real people with sweaty palms testify, usually honestly, what they know about their property. Volunteer panels try to align individual desires with the local Comprehensive Plan. Elected officials oversee the entire county to keep it healthy, physically attractive and full of job opportunities.

The conclusion is clear. Land use decisions won’t always settle into the neat Sudoku solutions I can formulate in my fat yellow book.

Lucinda Wingard is a guest columnist for The Peninsula Gateway. She can be reached by e-mail at wingardjl@comcast.net.