I’m following the process to update Clark County’s Comprehensive Growth Management Plan with great interest. I have no real dog in the fight. Neither I nor any family member or close friend own rural land affected.
The first of two open houses on the proposed alternatives was held Wednesday at Ridgefield High School. The second will be Wed., April 1 at Hockinson High School (starting at 5:30 p.m.). I urge all who are interested to attend, become informed and share their thoughts. It’s an important issue for everyone in the area, regardless of whether or not you own land that would be affected.
If you’ve been reading what I’ve written in this space over the past few years, you know I am a strong proponent of an individual’s rights. I also believe in the greater good, but as long as it doesn’t adversely affect others, I don’t want government or anyone else telling me what I can and can’t do. And, that includes the ownership of property.
I think it’s pretty easy to accept the premise that a problem exists, as Clark County Councilor David Madore explained on his Facebook page after Wednesday’s meeting in Ridgefield.
“Every seven years, we make necessary changes to ensure that our citizens have ample, affordable and useful land for our community to grow, prosper and thrive for the next 20 years,’’ Madore wrote. “Yet 6 of every 10 parcels in the Rural category do not conform to our current zoning map. Seven of every 10 parcels in the AG category do not conform to our current zoning map. Eight of every 10 parcels in the FR category do not conform to our current zoning map. And those numbers do not even include the remnants, parcels that are smaller than 1 acre for R, 5 acres for AG, and 10 acres for FR.
“The problem is not with the rural community,’’ Madore said. “The vast majority of those parcels predated our zoning map. The problem is instead, the inappropriate 20-year old zoning map that did not align with reality when it was created.’’
A group of area citizens, members of Clark County Citizens United (CCCU), have devoted a great deal of time and resources over the past 20 years to this issue. Opponents of their efforts are critical of the CCCU members and their efforts to have county officials consider a fourth alternative to update the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan.
“This alternative comes from a special interest group who claim to represent 6,000 rural landowners who have a Facebook group with only 14 followers,’’ wrote Sydney Reisbick, president of Friends of Clark County on her group’s website (www.friendsofclarkcounty.org). “This group has been represented by only two people who continue to press for rural development at County Council meetings. It is uncertain as to who and how many landowners they truly represent, yet Councilor Madore has pushed the county staff to insert this new Alternative 4 into the process.
“Various parcel sizes are encouraged in the Growth Management Act and the zoning designation have been in place since 1994,’’ Reisbick wrote. “This begs the questions what exactly is the 4th alternative a remedy for, if not for paving way for the benefit of few at the cost to all.’’
In addition to agreeing with Madore and the members of CCCU that a problem does exist, I think it’s important to point out that the problem isn’t one that was created by the rural landowners. It was created by the zoning designations created in 1994. The “cost to all’’ that Reisbick wrote about, isn’t the fault of those trying to fix the problem they didn’t create.
Reisbick went on to write about her doomsday scenario should Alternative 4 prevail. She warned of the need for increased infrastructure including the costs of roads, schools and emergency services, translating into increased property taxes and negative impacts to rural living. She also said that “water availability is a major concern’’ before summing it all up by claiming: “The 4th Alternative could ruin rural life as we know it.’’
I think that’s hardly the case. Would there be expense? Yes. Could it be a considerable expense? Possibly. Again, much of that was caused by the mistake that was made more than 20 years ago.
The bottom line is this. If a rural landowner owns 20, 40 or 80 acres and that landowner wants to develop the land, for profit or otherwise, he or she should be able to within reason. Preventing a landowner from developing his or her land strips them of their individual rights and robs them of their opportunity to profit, prosper and in some cases, enjoy the ownership of their land.
If that burdens county staff, costs us taxpayers money and presents challenges when it comes to the management of growth, that’s what we have to live with to right this wrong.
Ken Vance
Editor
