Good Growth Recommendations: Use the Full Record
Responsible growth decisions should be based on verified housing need, the development actually proposed, site-specific infrastructure evidence and the consequences of both approval and denial.
No single concern or statistic should decide the outcome by itself.
Housing need is not a reason to ignore infrastructure. Infrastructure is not a reason to ignore housing need. A responsible decision weighs the complete record and explains how competing facts were reconciled.
Housing evidence
Demand, price, rent, household income, available housing types, worker purchasing capacity and the households a proposal is intended to serve.
Project evidence
The actual location, density, housing type, design, access, drainage plan, utilities, timing, mitigation and enforceable conditions of the proposal under review.
Regional consequences
Effects on workforce access, housing choice, future generations, local business and the construction, real estate and professional services connected to housing activity.
Apply the same complete test to every proposal.
| Required finding | Evidence leaders should examine | What is not enough |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Is need or demand demonstrated? | Current and geographically appropriate population, household, market, workforce and housing-choice evidence. | A general claim that no more housing is needed, or that any new housing is automatically needed. |
| 2. Does the proposal add a useful housing choice? | Housing type, tenure, expected price or rent range, accessibility, life-stage relevance and existing local alternatives. | Counting every housing unit as interchangeable. |
| 3. Is this location appropriate? | Land-use compatibility, access to jobs and services, hazard context, transportation and adopted planning guidance. | Opposition to growth everywhere, or support for development everywhere. |
| 4. Are infrastructure concerns specific and documented? | Project-level analysis of roads, drainage, sewer, water, schools, utilities and emergency services, including existing capacity and measurable project impacts. | Using the words traffic, flooding, schools or infrastructure without evidence tied to the proposal. |
| 5. Can identified impacts be mitigated? | Design changes, phasing, infrastructure improvements, funding responsibilities, enforceable conditions and long-term maintenance. | Treating a solvable constraint as an automatic permanent prohibition. |
| 6. What are the consequences of denial as well as approval? | Effects on housing choice, workforce access, the regional economy, future residents, infrastructure costs and reasonable alternatives. | Reviewing only the possible costs of approval while assuming denial has no cost. |
Make the basis of the decision visible.
For major housing decisions, the public record should identify the sources reviewed, the findings made under each requirement, the mitigation considered and the reasons the final action was selected.
If the proposal is approved
State which housing need it addresses, why the location is appropriate, what impacts were documented and what conditions or improvements will be required.
If the proposal is denied
State the verified basis for denial, why reasonable mitigation would not resolve the concern, and how the unmet housing need will otherwise be addressed.