Growth management plan of particular importance to District 2 as area grows

County council election coverage

o Fee waivers

County fee-waiver program a contentious issue for council chair candidates

District 2 candidates, backers and foes, call for changes to fee-waiver program

o Transportation

County chair candidates weigh in on transportation issues

Councilor candidates in District 2 discuss transportation priorities

o Growth management

Candidates for county chair position divided on growth

Growth management plan of particular importance to District 2 as area grows

Candidates from Clark County council District 2 say the region, which stretches from the Hazel Dell area to the northern border of the county, is in a unique position when it comes to growth management.

The district is home farms, suburbs and Ridgefield, Washington’s fastest-growing city. Growth management will be particularly important to the area as its population increases, perhaps more so than all other areas of the county, according to the candidates.

Here are talking points on growth management from the five candidates:

• Chuck Green, Democrat: Green has called for a “value-based” approach to Clark County’s Comprehensive Growth Management Plan update.

If elected, Green said he will vote to implement Alternative 1 — which makes no changes to county zoning. He’ll also pursue a collaborative plan involving local land-use groups — Clark County Citizens United and Friends of Clark County, for example — along with city representatives and planners.

• Mike Pond, Democrat: Pond called for throwing out Councilor David Madore’s Alternative 4, saying it will create strip malls and suburban sprawl across the county.

“Every mayor in the county is opposed to it,” he said.

Pond said he wants the county to request a deadline extension from the state Department of Commerce on the plan update, which is supposed to be submitted and approved by June 30, 2016.

• Mary Benton, Republican: Benton, who returned a request for comment via email, said Clark County needs to “maximize the options that allow citizens to have the most flexibility” with their property.

“It is not right that property owners can build in the cities but that those in rural areas have their hands tied with what they can do with their land,” Benton.

When asked for additional information and clarification, Benton did not respond.

• Tanner Martin, no party preference: Martin said while planning staff should have taken a stronger hand in the creation of Alternative 4, the county still needs to consider the rights of rural property owners. Martin said it would make him “irate” if the government tried to control use of his land.

“These people moved there,” he said. “They’ve been there for a very long time. We’re coming in and changing their way of life.”

• Julie Olson, Republican: Olson took a gentler approach to growth management than her opponents, saying she wants to wait to see what the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement says before judging Alternative 4 or any other plan.

What will be important for the county is striking a balance between private property rights and the need for economic development in cities.

“Is Alt. 4 the answer? Most likely probably not,” she said. “But I’m willing to talk about what might be.”