Bill Black’s attendance at a recent open house on the comprehensive management update raised more concerns than confidence
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
I recently attended an open house event with the planners from Clark County working on the States new laws on the comprehensive management update.
There’s a section that involves the climate …
It says it’s managing the need for climate change strategy — an effort mandated under Washington’s HB 1181. As a Native American myself that has a love for the land – what I saw raised more concerns than confidence.
There was no vision. No innovation. And — more importantly — no real conversation with the people who will be affected most: the property owners, farmers, builders, real estate professionals, and business leaders who drive Clark County’s economy and steward its land- the representation basically all said their there because they have to be- Not a easy position to make all happy but they seemed spent.
Instead, planners are marching forward using cookie-cutter data from the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group and checking boxes to meet minimum legal requirements. But here’s the part that should stop all of us in our tracks:
HB 1181 doesn’t actually require Clark County to adopt a climate plan — unless the county first determines that climate change poses a significant threat to our jurisdiction.
That’s not my interpretation. That’s the law.
Before spending taxpayer money, making zoning changes, or pushing new regulations onto landowners, the county is supposed to ask and answer one critical question:
Does Clark County believe climate change is a significant local threat?
I’m not from Missouri but my Mom is…
So “show me”
To my knowledge, that conversation has not happened. Not with the County Council. Not in a public forum. And certainly not with the input of the people most directly impacted.
Clark County is not King County.
Nor is it Portland which they use data from … or do they? It’s hard to find where the data comes from?
Our climate risks are different. Our economy is different. Our land use is different. We need a local conversation — not a top-down template that ignores that reality.
This is not about denying climate science – again I love my land.
It’s about respecting local process and honoring the responsibility that comes with self-governance. If the county is going to declare a “significant threat,” that declaration should be made transparently, with broad input, and based on data and experience — not political pressure or prewritten models.
To every official involved in this planning process, I offer this challenge: pause the paperwork and hold the hearing. Before you build a climate plan, ask Clark County if we even need one.
Bill Black
55-year Clark County native
Also read:
- Opinion: Someone explain the Democrat Party to me please
Lars Larson criticizes Democrat politicians for shutdown threats, Homeland Security funding refusals, and positions on election laws, housing, and gun rights. - POLL: Do you agree with requiring board members to follow council direction?
Disagreement among county councilors centers on whether C-TRAN board members should reflect the council’s collective wishes or act independently, highlighting ongoing concerns about public accountability. - Opinion: In plain sight – yielding to pedestrians
Drivers often fail to see pedestrians due to inattentional blindness, which highlights the need for more focused awareness at intersections and stronger safety practices. - Opinion: The legislature has committed $2.4 billion to recurring pension increases since 2018
Six legislative COLAs have raised public employer costs by $2.38 billion since 2018, driving up unfunded pension liabilities and increasing burdens on county and city budgets. - Opinion: ‘Just because they got away with it doesn’t mean they weren’t wrong’
A Skamania County deputy’s report found violations of county rules and the Open Public Meetings Act, but no prosecutor acted on the findings.
