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 unpreferred and unaffordable Interstate Bridge replacement proposal
Rep. John Ley argues that the Interstate Bridge Replacement proposal is unpreferred, unaffordable, and failing to address congestion, cost transparency, and community concerns. - POLL: If project costs continue to rise, what should lawmakers do with the I-5 Bridge replacement plan?
This poll asks readers what lawmakers should do with the I-5 Bridge replacement plan as costs rise and key decisions remain unresolved. - Opinion: IBR still holding and lying about coming billions in cost overruns
Joe Cortright argues that Interstate Bridge Replacement officials are deliberately delaying the release of an updated cost estimate that he says could push the project toward $10 billion. - Opinion: Another problem with strike pay from the UI fund – Potential double-dipping, overpayments
Elizabeth New (Hovde) argues that Washington’s new strike pay law risks overpayments and double-dipping unless workers are clearly warned at the point of applying for unemployment benefits. - Letter: A call for competent Interstate Bridge project management
Rick Vermeers argues that unchecked scope, rising costs, and missed timelines threaten the survival of the Interstate Bridge Replacement project unless light rail is removed.
