Group says rail-development plan too one-sided

But Friends of Clark County has criticized the county’s process as being tilted toward individuals supportive of extensive development of the railroad and surrounding agricultural lands.

Marshall noted that the first goal of the public participation plan is to “ensure broad participation” by soliciting input from the public and key interest groups while also making sure that “no single group or interest dominates the process.” But Marshall said that the plan falls short of the goal and she’s been unsettled by the process.

The public participation plan, which is required by state law, includes mailings, meetings to get feedback and the creation of the Freight Rail Dependent Use Advisory Committee that will consider and recommend development regulations.

The 12-member committee is comprised of representatives from the Columbia River Economic Development Council, Port of Vancouver, city of Battle Ground, and four members of the county’s Railroad Advisory Board. Eric Temple, the president of the ?Portland Vancouver Junction Railroad (the company that operates the rail), will serve in an ex-officio capacity. The committee will also include representatives from the Clark County Parks Advisory Board, the Greater Brush Prairie Neighborhood Association and the local farm bureau.

Marshall said that the committee is too weighted toward rail interests, some of which stand to benefit economically from the project. In a letter she sent to the council, she asked that the council broaden the notice requirements to the entire surrounding neighborhood and change the composition of the advisory committee. She wrote that her group wants to “help craft policy that can withstand challenges.” In a follow-up email, Marshall noted that she was referencing a potential legal challenge that her organization might initiate.

Speaking after Marshall, John Shaffer, the vice chair of the Railroad Advisory Board, told the council, “You’re our boss; I’m not sure we’re an interest group.”

Two individuals who live near the railroad showed up to express concerns about the development.

During the meeting, members of the council said that the development is important economically for Clark County and that they wanted the public to weigh in going forward. Councilor Jeanne Stewart said that it was important to get broad input and see if compromises could be made before people end up feeling alienated.

“It doesn’t do us any good to end up in the angry camp,” she said.

Councilor John Blom said that the development needed to proceed thoughtfully, referencing Livingston Mountain, where residents have loudly complained about nearby mining activity. Council Chair Marc Boldt also noted that the committee is advisory in nature and that the buck stops with the council.

The council had considered appointing a representative from Friends of Clark County to the new advisory committee after staff proposed the idea at a work session last month. At the session, Blom noted that the group has been party to litigation challenging the county’s comprehensive growth plan.

“I think inviting them into the huddle when we know they are likely to sue us at the end of it all makes me a little bit nervous,” said Blom. “Not that we don’t want their input.”

The council makes audio recordings of its work sessions. The recorder was left on after it had concluded the session and captured remarks from Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Chris Cook suggesting that putting the group on the committee could get its buy-in.

David McDonald, a lawyer who advises Friends of Clark County, said that he agrees with the idea. He said that he served on a forest conversion task force years ago where he found consensus with private landowners.

But in a pointed letter sent to the council, McDonald states that the way the group has been kept off the committee “places a permanent taint on this process.” The letter also states that overall process violates the public participation requirements of the state’s Growth Management Act.