Will citizens really be heard? Washington County is about to find out.

Carla Axtman

In 2007, a whole bunch of interested folks came together with the legislature to reconfigure the system for managing the Portland region’s urban and rural land use issues. The system in place wasn't protecting critical farmland or natural resources over the long term and was failing to consider how to effectively manage urbanization when deciding where to expand the Urban Growth Boundary.

In response, the legislature developed Senate Bill 1011. This legislation came up with a process to set aside long-term urban and rural reserve lands in Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington Counties. It also created a process for designating them simultaneously through agreements between Metro and the counties.

For the last two years under this process, the counties have been ironing out plans for the unincorporated land that could set it aside for development or set it in place over the next 50 years.

A Reserves Coordinating Committee (RCC) was set up in the various counties to make recommendations to Metro for the each counties' urban and rural reserves. In Washington County, this committee was made up of city mayors, Washington County Commissioners Tom Brian and Andy Duyck and two representatives of the Farm Bureau.

When Washington County began airing their plan to set aside 34,000 acres as urban reserves (after originally considering 47,000), much of it north of Highway 26 near Helvetia, groups of local citizens began to express concern about the size of the reserves and the location. Multnomah County's citizen advisory committee and county planners recommended little or no urban reserves for their county. Clackamas County recommended 8000. The disparity between Washington County and the rest was seen by many as alarming.


According to Brian Beinlich of Save Helvetia, Washington County had little in the way of citizen representation with the RCC. "No citizens groups were represented and there was little ag representation," Beinlich said. "(Washington County Commission Chair) Tom Brian originally wanted only Andy Duyck to represent agricultural interests. But the Farm Bureau managed to get on after some wrangling." Beinlich said that each member of the RCC had one vote, except the two members of the Farm Bureau who each had half a vote.

When the time came for the RCC to vote on the urban and rural reserves recommendations for Washington County, the vote was 5 11-2. The dissenters? The two Farm Bureau representatives and Washington County Commissioner Andy Duyck. From the Sherwood Gazette:

After discussion for more than a year regarding what should be designated as reserve land, representatives voted 11 to 2 to move the recommendations to the next step of the process, a regional coordinating committee who are expected to feel the brunt of the fallout of those who object to the location and size of the recommended acreage.

Both Washington County Commissioner Andy Duyck and Washington County Farm Bureau representatives Dave Vanasche and Larry Duyck (who collectively had one vote on the issue) rejected the proposal.

In the same story, the Farm Bureau expressed dismay with Washington County's process:

Recently, the Washington County Farm Bureau issued a five-page report blasting Washington County for how it came up with its criteria for designating rural reserve land and that land set aside for future urban development.

The farmers’ report says the county put too much emphasis on irrigation and parcel size when determining what farmland would be a good fit for future development, and that the county misread the state statute enabling Metro — and Washington, Multnomah and Clackamas counties — to set aside reserves in the first place.

In voting against acceptance of the reserve recommendations, Commissioner Duyck said he didn’t feel there were enough protections for agricultural pursuits, saying there wasn’t a process to analyze what farmers would like to see in the next 40 to 50 years.

The Farm Bureau and Duyck weren't the only ones deeply dissatisfied with the decision. Beinlich says comments coming in to Washington County favor having a greater measure of rural reserves by a 3:1 margin.

Gerritt Rosenthall of the Metro Committee for Citizen Involvement says Washington County is not listening to it's citizens. "350 people showed up to the big meeting (for the RCC). 90 people testified and 75-80% were in favor of greater rural reserves. But they still voted 5 11-2 for the big urban reserves."

Rosenthall said that Washington County Community organizations have been left to informing the county's citizens about the goings on with the process. He says he believes that the county's citizen information process has the ability to do a good job, but perhaps the County Commission isn't giving it good direction.

But Washington County Program Educator Mike Dahlstrom noted that the county has a public involvement plan and that public comment and participation in open houses has been good. Dahlstrom provided a webpage that links to county processes for public involvement on the urban and rural reserves. He also provided an an issue paper produced September 1, 2009 providing an overview of public involvement efforts.

Yet despite all of this public involvement and pleading for less urban reserves and more land set aside for rural interests, the RCC steamrolled ahead with the 34.000 acre recommendation to Metro.

Rosenthall isn't against having land set aside for development. "There are some lands that should be in urban reserves," he said. "But 30,000 is not necessary. The economics don't stack up."

And when talking about how the RCC in Washington County made its decision, Rosenthall is unequivocal: "Information isn't the problem. Listening is."

The recommendations are now in the hands of Metro, who appear to be leaning toward scaling back from what Washington County recommended:

Metro councilors strongly support preserving land north of U.S. 26 and land north of Council Creek near Cornelius, as rural reserves, protected from development for the next 40 to 50 years.

At a meeting of the key players of the reserves designation process Monday, Metro Councilor Kathryn Harrington said there are several areas of “strong support” among her peers on the council.

In a memo circulated Monday, Harrington wrote that Metro councilors strongly support protecting land north of Highway 26, with the exception of land near West Union, and protecting land north of Forest Grove and Cornelius, with the exception of land between Thatcher Road and Highway 47, south of Purdin Road.

Councilors strongly support urban reserves in West Union and north of Forest Grove, as well as land southeast of Cornelius, land south of Hillsboro near Reedville, and land north of Hillsboro, south of Waible Creek and Meek Road. In total, the Metro Council strongly supports establishment of 15,661 acres of urban reserves regionwide, with 8,660 of those acres in Washington County.

According to the above story, Washington County Commission Chair Tom Brian was upset with the memo, accusing Metro of pushing its will on the Core 4, the group with Metro that will ultimately decide the outcome of the reserves.

The Core 4: Multnomah County Commissioner Jeff Cogen, Clackamas County Commissioner Charlotte Lehan, Washington County Commissioner Tom Brian and Metro Councilor Kathryn Harrington. Their next meeting is this Friday, December 4.

Brian appears to be the one holding out against the tide of public opinion to scale back--much of it coming from his own county.

We'll see if the Core 4 listens to these citizens, even if they have to bring Brian along kicking and screaming.


  • (Show?)

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Carla. As a long-time resident of Forest Grove and a former resident of neighboring Cornelius I have to say that Councilor Harrington's memo makes more sense to me than Chair Brian's apparent desires.

    There are substantial acres of wholesale nursery north of Forest Grove and north of Cornelius which pump a lot of money into the local economy. I can't imagine that the agricultural land that it was previously brought in as much. But coverting it to residential tracts makes no economic sense to me in terms of what's good for the communities. The developers would benefit and Chair Brian would likely be rewarded one way or another. But that won't do our local economy any good.

  • Kurt Chapman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Better yet, why not do away with this centralized planning experiment out of Salem? Get away from the one-size-fits-all approach dictated by the state and allow counties and cities the ability to do their own planning and regulation?

    Remind us all again how many other states have a strict centralized process? Oh, yeah - none.

  • (Show?)

    Kurt:

    Actually, that's pretty much what the Senate Bill did. It's allowing the three Metro counties to do the recommendations and make their own decision on how it goes down.

    Unfortunately, Washington County seems to have, in large part, blown the citizens off completely when it comes to how the decision was made.

  • Greg D. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Urban density is the next battle between Good and Evil.

  • Magnus Greel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: Greg D. | Dec 3, 2009 6:29:48 PM

    Urban density is the next battle between Good and Evil.

    Indeed. Density is next to godliness. And if you don't like that you can move to the well-defined country. It's only temporary anyway. When telecommutes become the norm, and printers come along that can render real world objects, cities will be relics of the past.

    Wish someone could fax me a pizza now. Would love to follow this thread, but I'll lose it if I have to read the exact same verbiage from Kar-lock for the 1524th time!

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "The system was failing to consider how to effectively manage urbanization"

    Oh please, The "system"?

    What's failed is the Metro council and staff, along with other planning burueaucracies and their lousy ideas they are obsessed with.

    The TODs, Urban Renewal Schemes, smart growth fantasies and the inability to recognize repeated failure while advocating more of them same.

    I'l wager there's not a single regular contributor here who has a clear grasp of Urban Renewal/TIF or how it's been abused in the region.

    I swear it's like everyone who supports the Metro model is living in Metro's theroetical life in their conceptual world.

  • Lord Beaverbrook (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I swear it's like everyone who supports the Metro model is living in Metro's theroetical life in their conceptual world.

    I know plenty of liberals that support the growth boundary and think the folks at metro are completely unresponsive jerks. Life isn't so simple as you make it. Symbols are for the symbol-minded.

    smart growth fantasies

    You're right. The idea that this country could do "smart growth" is most definitely a fantasy. You're what we're going to get and why we suck so badly.

  • wallo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So, I think this is the Blue position on urban reserves:

    1. Grudgingly acknowledge some land most be designated urban reserve - available for urbanization over the next 40 years - but it should be a really really little amount.

    2. Any elected official or anyone else supporting the designation of more than a really really small of urban reserve is a greedy developer or a dupe/lackey of the greedy developer.

    3. If the farm bureau or other groups or people object to a certain area being urban reserve, then that area should not be urban reserve.

    4. Any elected official or anyone else supporting an urban reserve designation for land that the farm bureua or others say should not be urban reserve is a greedy developer or a dupe/lackey of the greedy developer.

    5. If the ultimate decision on urban reserves violates number 1 or 3 above, then the process was obviously flawed.

    BTW: Contrary to your theme of farm interests being dissed, the two farm bureau representatives on the Washington County advisory committee were the only non-governnment reps on that committee. Maybe their position was well-heard and considered and the large majority disagreed, or maybe you're right and they were all dupes and lackeys (see nos 2 and 4 above)

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Will a substantive post be heard? Now we know.

  • (Show?)

    So, I think this is the Blue position on urban reserves:

    Everything written after that is meaningless. The position on urban and rural reserves isn't "blue" or "red". There are hard-core conservative agricultural folks who are very upset at the urban reserves proposals for Washington County. There are progressives who feel the same way.

    It doesn't work to pigeon hole this one.

    And Ed: if you have a real point, make it. If not...please stop wasting time and pixels.

  • Andy Miller (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Unfortunately, Washington County seems to have, in large part, blown the citizens off completely when it comes to how the decision was made."

    It probably does seem that way to folks that are just now tuning in, but having participated (as a citizen) in many of the public outreach efforts, I'd say there was a heroic effort to include citizens.

    Save Helvetia is well organized and repeats their message so often they drown out most of the other voices that were heard during the last 2 years. Including many from the Helvetia area that say "my family has been farming for 3 generations and the Farm Bureau does not represent me."

    There have been plenty of citizens asking for adequate urban reserves to handle the projected growth in the smartest way possible. Not everyone belongs to or agrees with Save Helvetia.

    <h2>Chair Brian and the rest of the county commissioners have a very hard job in the next few days making a decision that will last 40 years. It is too easy--and wrong--to say they didn't listen if the decision conflicts with a small group of people.</h2>

connect with blueoregon