CRC and land use: let's be up front
On Sunday The Columbian had an article about the effort to come up with another alternative for the CRC to study in the DEIS phase. This excerpt mentions Democratic Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart and Rex Burkholder of Oregon's Metro, both of whom are on the CRC task force:
The short version of the story is that Craig Pridemore and Judy Stanton, the two commissioners who supported the 2004 plan, quickly moved on. Pridemore got elected to the state senate and Stanton retired from the board, choosing not to run again. The election of Republican Marc Boldt quickly tipped the balance on the board to a pro-developer majority.
Politically, this could get very interesting in 2008. Betty Sue Morris, a staunchly pro-BIAW Democrat, has said she will retire, which will create an open seat. Republican Marc Boldt, the other pro-growth commissioner, will probably stand for re-election. Meaning control of the board is up for grabs.
There has been speculation that Republican state senator Don Benton, who currently represents the 17th District, is interested in running for the Morris seat. Benton has denied that, but since Don Benton and the truth tend to have a somewhat tenuous relationship, it's certainly possible he will run.
Since there have been no mentions of any big name Democrats running, this potential CRC land use discussion is taking place in the context of a political situation where not only has Clark County government decided to increase development, but the odds of changing that range from slim to none, unless local Democrats find some decent candidates.
I'm not begrudging Stuart the chance to offer another alternative to the CRC. Even though staff has said that a supplemental bridge has significant pitfalls, it's ok to include it in the DEIS in my view. But if we want to talk about land use, we need to be up front about what has happened and what is happening in Clark County. Land use policy is moving in the opposite direction of what would be needed to lower costs for the CRC project.
In the end, as Stuart smartly notes, everyone is not going to be happy. Certain elements on the right came out frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of studying light rail, and truth be told there are some folks in Portland who seem more interested in disparaging Clark County than in solving the problem. Which is human nature I suppose, but the practical effect of calling light rail "communistic" or generalizing about Clark County residents is to shut down the willingness of people to consider your point of view. Trains are a method of conveyance, not a political ideology, and people live in Clark County for all sorts of reasons, be it the accident of birth (or marriage,) economic fortune or yes, choice.
But before anyone gets discouraged, let's remember what a big project this is and how trying to include as many voices as possible makes for a cumbersome process. That may be frustrating at times, but that's the price we pay for democracy.
Sometimes perseverance is amply rewarded, if not always well remembered.
Stuart and other task force members expressed unease at the narrow range of options. They wanted an additional alternative to demonstrate that the fix isn't in for any one idea and that the group is taking many options seriously.If you go back and take a look at the amendment that led to the creation of the subcommittee, item three says:
"We can't expect everybody to be happy when we come to a final decision," Stuart said. "But everybody should be happy with the inclusiveness of the process." Failing to include more alternatives now, he said, might risk losing support for a final choice at the end.
What is gained, asked Walter Valenta, task force member from the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association, if in the end, Clark County commissioners or the Metro Council don't support the project?
"Without another alternative, it would be difficult to get the group to agree," Burkholder said. "We need to win in the court of public opinion. They're going to be the ones paying the bills."
Stuart and Burkholder will head the subcommittee, which includes business people and public officials from both sides of the river. They plan on coming up with the new alternative in time for a vote by the full task force at its March 27 meeting.
3. Analyzing in the DEIS a variety of issues relating to land-use, tolling, environmental justice, access issues on Hayden Island, and TDM/TSM measures.The land use part is particularly interesting for Clark County, as the commissioners are still working on a revision of the 20-year comprehensive plan that was passed only in 2004. The new plan will presumably allow much more development than under the 2004 plan.
The short version of the story is that Craig Pridemore and Judy Stanton, the two commissioners who supported the 2004 plan, quickly moved on. Pridemore got elected to the state senate and Stanton retired from the board, choosing not to run again. The election of Republican Marc Boldt quickly tipped the balance on the board to a pro-developer majority.
Politically, this could get very interesting in 2008. Betty Sue Morris, a staunchly pro-BIAW Democrat, has said she will retire, which will create an open seat. Republican Marc Boldt, the other pro-growth commissioner, will probably stand for re-election. Meaning control of the board is up for grabs.
There has been speculation that Republican state senator Don Benton, who currently represents the 17th District, is interested in running for the Morris seat. Benton has denied that, but since Don Benton and the truth tend to have a somewhat tenuous relationship, it's certainly possible he will run.
Since there have been no mentions of any big name Democrats running, this potential CRC land use discussion is taking place in the context of a political situation where not only has Clark County government decided to increase development, but the odds of changing that range from slim to none, unless local Democrats find some decent candidates.
I'm not begrudging Stuart the chance to offer another alternative to the CRC. Even though staff has said that a supplemental bridge has significant pitfalls, it's ok to include it in the DEIS in my view. But if we want to talk about land use, we need to be up front about what has happened and what is happening in Clark County. Land use policy is moving in the opposite direction of what would be needed to lower costs for the CRC project.
In the end, as Stuart smartly notes, everyone is not going to be happy. Certain elements on the right came out frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of studying light rail, and truth be told there are some folks in Portland who seem more interested in disparaging Clark County than in solving the problem. Which is human nature I suppose, but the practical effect of calling light rail "communistic" or generalizing about Clark County residents is to shut down the willingness of people to consider your point of view. Trains are a method of conveyance, not a political ideology, and people live in Clark County for all sorts of reasons, be it the accident of birth (or marriage,) economic fortune or yes, choice.
But before anyone gets discouraged, let's remember what a big project this is and how trying to include as many voices as possible makes for a cumbersome process. That may be frustrating at times, but that's the price we pay for democracy.
Sometimes perseverance is amply rewarded, if not always well remembered.
