Amid an examination of Clark County’s debate over road improvements near the corridor of 179th Street and Interstate 5 lies a fascinating statistic: The county has 0.90 jobs for each household.
The interesting part comes from comparison with other counties in the metro area. Multnomah County, which includes the employment hub of downtown Portland, has 1.55 jobs per household. Washington County to the west of Portland has a ratio of 1.33, and Clackamas County to the south of the city has a ratio of 1.03.
None of this is top of mind when somebody is sitting in traffic trying to get across the I-5 Bridge or when a family is trying to find affordable housing in Clark County. But the numbers presented in a recent article by Columbian reporter Jeffrey Mize illuminate the issues facing Clark County leaders as they weigh the benefits and the drawbacks of continued growth.
By virtue of being both a thriving stand-alone community and a bedroom community to Portland, Clark County is in an unusual position. Much of the local economy is dependent upon jobs available across the Columbia River, and it always will be. The ideal approach is to develop more jobs on this side of the river, but leaders must be realistic about the extent to which that is possible.
This has manifested itself in decades of residential growth throughout the area. When asked whether the region is addicted to growth, county Councilor Julie Olson said: “We are. It’s almost imbedded in our culture.”
That plays a role in the discussion over the corridor at 179th Street. The plan calls for $66.4 million in road improvements — with funding from both public and private sources — that would allow developers to build 1,155 single-family homes, 326 apartments and 99 townhouses. Olson said, “I don’t think we are bending over backwards to accommodate residential. I think we are doing our appropriate work.”
That is the key to effectively serving residents throughout the area. Growth is an inherently contentious issue, with public opinion supporting a varying range of options. You always can find citizens who favor expanding growth boundaries to accommodate increased population with single-family homes; limiting those boundaries contributes to rising housing prices. You also can find those who favor building up rather than out, increasing density in the urban core and preserving rural areas as much as possible.
For county government, which serves areas outside incorporated cities, the questions revolve around those rural areas and striking the proper balance between growth and preserving the region’s quality of life.
In considering the 179th Street corridor, the immediate issue is whether to lift the area’s “urban holding” designation, which prevents development without funding for roads and other infrastructure. All of this also is affected by the state’s Growth Management Act and by Clark County’s plans for adhering to that state law.
While the issue is complex, the important thing is to provide a balance that meets both the residential and economic needs for the region. Residential sprawl that increases pressure on roads and schools and utilities is counterproductive without development that also enhances local employment opportunities. So is moving forward without seeking consensus from local residents.
As Scott Bailey, the state’s regional economist, said, the issue is “what Clark County residents what their county to look like.” That should be a subject that generates robust discussion.
