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: The income tax proposal has arrived
Ryan Frost of the Washington Policy Center argues that a proposed Washington income tax creates a new revenue stream rather than delivering tax reform or relief. - Opinion: ‘If they want light rail, they should be the ones who pay for it’
Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance argues that supporters of light rail tied to the I-5 Bridge replacement should bear the local cost of operating and maintaining the system through a narrowly drawn sub-district. - POLL: If a sub-district is created, what area should it include?
Clark County residents are asked where a potential C-TRAN sub-district should be drawn if voters are asked to fund light rail operations and maintenance costs. - Opinion: IBR falsely blaming inflation
Joe Cortright argues that inflation explains only a small portion of the IBR project’s cost increases and that rising consultant and staff expenses are the primary drivers. - Letter: The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $141 million bribe can be better spent on sandwich steel-concrete tubes
Bob Ortblad argues that an immersed tunnel using sandwich steel-concrete tubes would be a more cost-effective alternative to the current Interstate Bridge Replacement Program design.
