Something smells in Clackamas County

By Lisa Batey of Milwaukie, Oregon. Lisa describes herself as a "neighborhood leader concerned about Willamette water quality as well as open public policy processes."

Yes, fearless readers, we're all disappointed regularly by our elected officials. But things have hit a new low with the Board of County Commissioners in Clackamas County. Bypassing open meetings laws seems to be the order of the day.

In September, after several years of study by all affected jurisdictions, the Board voted to consolidate sewage treatment in Oregon City -- a decision, known as the Clearwater Project, which would benefit Willamette water quality, and, in the longer term, the ratepayer as well. Details here on that decision and the extensive inter-governmental and public consultation process that led up to it.

Some anti-government forces in an unincorporated part of the county, though, got enough signatures to refer this decision to the ballot.

First, the Board didn't put up much of a fight over the issue of whether their September decision was appropriate referred to the ballot.

Then, over the holidays, we got the news that the Board was likely to rescind the Clearwater decision and create some sort of citizens advisory committee to review the sewage treatment options and hire consultants to revisit all the calculations in the Clearwater reports.

But on Friday, January 6, after a couple of months of backroom dealings with the petitioners, the other shoe dropped...

County executive Jon Mantay informed a meeting of city managers from the jurisdictions served by the two treatment plants that the first three members of this new five-member citizens advisory committee would be the THREE LEAD PETITIONERS, and that they would have substantial control over the designation of the remaining members. (PDF)

So, in effect, the Board is placing the future of sewage treatment for a wide swath of Clackamas county in the hands of people who represent -- at absolute most, assuming everyone else in the unincorporated area agrees with them -- 36% of the affected ratepayers. And disenfrancising residents of Milwaukie, Gladstone, Oregon City, and West Linn in the bargain.

The documents that Mantay distributed and that the Board is to consider at their Jan 12 session are available at DontWasteClackamas.org. (Board agenda, with details of Thursday's meeting, here.)

So, not only have the Board given in to a petitioning minority, they have given them control of the process in a sneaky backroom deal. It's not only the sewage treatment plants that emanate odors in Clackamas County.

Commissioners Larry Sowa and Bill Kennemer need to go.

  • mr. clack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks for the perspective on the commissioners, and for Kari's links to the Oregonian article.

    I'm trying to better understand the Clearwater project, and the future of county sewage and waste water as seen through various angles. I would appreciate any other links on the topic, for or against.

    Also interested in how these various perspectives factor into property owners that are not currently served, but may be forced to "be serviced" in the future.

    I'm looking to unite with those who believe that the county should pay for future pipe laying through general county-wide tax dollars, instead of capturing leans on select citizens' properties to force payment for infrastructure growth, as some would have it. Any groups in this camp?

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The last thing I want is development being subsidized [even more than it is now] by current residents. New infrastructure should be paid for by those who make it necessasry. As it is now, existing citizens get to pay for the creation of problems that will lower their quality of life.

    The Clearwater Project is a complex answer to a complex problem. The positive is state of the art sanitary service and getting the present plant off the Milwaukie waterfront. The negative is subsidizing growth.

    As far as how the county has developed the project, well, I think it is another good reason for campaign finance reform. When politicians depend on developers and utility companies to get reelected, the system is front-loaded with waste, fraud and abuse.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And here's a prediction:

    The pressure to shift popuation growth to Clackamas County will realign politics here. Anti-taxers and progressives who recognize the folly of the infinite growth paradigm will unite to turn down all sorts of infrastructure spending needed to serve the developing areas.

    This will slow growth but put extreme pressure on public services, including education and transportation.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Anti-taxers and progressives who recognize the folly of the infinite growth paradigm will unite to turn down all sorts of infrastructure spending needed to serve the developing areas.

    Given the pressures of development, I don't know that here ia a lot of infrastructure "needed". The infratructure will be needed to preserve a livability community as development occurs. I know there are people who think they can stop growth from happening by cutting off money for roads, sewer, water, schools etc. But I think if that is the position people take they are far more likely to have their communities overrun by irresponsible development.

    That does not mean approving every new proposal for infrastructure just because someone says it is needed for development. But it does mean figuring out how to spend money in a way that encourages responsible development when it occurs.

    The debate over development on the bluffs in Damascus is a good example. Some people who own land on those bluffs aren't very happy that the planned infrastructure and zoning are only going to support low density development. They see dollar signs in the possibility of building highrise condos. If you only let development occur where someone will pay for the minimum infrastructure needed to develop, you will see lots of McMansions and condos on the bluffs that destroy the environment, pollute local streams and put a strain on roads and other infrastructure. And you will have very little of the dense development around town centers with natural buffers that preserve streamss and the rural character of Damascus. And its that kind of dense development that really keeps the costs down for new infrastructure as well.

  • Lisa Batey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For Mr. Clack:

    I am not aware of any links with info on Clearwater other than those that were in the posting.

    I'm not sure I followed your questions exactly. But if you're insinuating that the Clearwater Project had a goal of getting those in the built-out but unincorporated parts of the County west of I-205, I don't really think it has much to do with that. That debate is going on in the context of annexation and in discussions of an urban renewal district to benefit the area between the Milwaukie line and 82nd Avenue. I could be naive, but I don't really think Clearwater has anything to do with that. But the County website should soon have the schedule for the new Citizens Advisory Council (CAC), and you could pose this question to them.

    If, on the other hand, you're talking about new development to the east of I-205, that is one of the common objections to Clearwater: that "growth doesn't pay for growth". This will likely be a prime topic of discussion for the new CAC, and hopefully will get some Oregonian coverage.

  • Lisa (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry, Mr. Clack, I guess I had suppressed the memory, but the petitioners do indeed have a website, at http://www.ortem.org/scam/

    Most tellingly, they are soliciting contributions there for their PAC, hardly an auspicious start for what's supposed to be an objective Advisory Council.

guest column

connect with blueoregon