There is lot of new construction, land rezoning, plus public service infrastructure upgrades and additions in our area. Once predominant industries and business have closed or are leaving the area, replaced by entirely new industries and businesses.
The pace of these changes will only increase as the population grows and the numbers of affluent individuals continue to relocate to our communities. Residents born and raised here have been forced to deal with enormous changes, both economic and cultural. We all realize the values of new residents can dramatically clash with the values and norms of our long-established residents. A person's affluence, religion, education and upbringing strongly influence how they view their neighborhoods, politics and the world.
That said, I'd like to start a conversation on finding some common ground to prepare for this growth in terms of energy efficiency and independence, greater opportunities for small, home-grown businesses and reduction of future infrastructure expenses and taxes.
We’ve all heard the cliché “penny wise and pound foolish”. I’d like to look at making a few changes to our zoning, land use, and construction regulations to prepare us for the future. Clear and unemotionally investigation of the small decisions we make today that can create a large economic and environmental difference down the road.
If you are interested in contributing to this thread, I have only two requests:
1). No interjection of any religious beliefs into this process.
2). Abstain from ridiculing the opinions, viewpoints and ideas of others and no “bad-mouthing”.
I’d like to find solutions--not demons.
...this posting was email'd to whitesalmon2007@yahoo.com by "ShadowGirl"
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Area Population Growth, Energy Consumption, Environment. Any Common Ground?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I would like to see a growth in jobs as well as population. We need to grow in both! Why can't we entice corporations to invest in our community as well as we can people who want summer homes?
Blue Bell
Shadow Girl is asking, "how do we go about finding common ground" across a diverse group of people to inform planning processes.
Are we in agreement that everyone needs access to or a way to have:
income
housing
resources such as fuel, water,
infrastructures such as public schools, health care, enforcement
safe air, water, traffic flows,
meaningful connections in community (library?)?
Is this common ground? Are there other things?
And are we in agreement as a community that we value the diversity and are willing to make concessions and develop policy so that a large base of people in the community are able to access basics, even if that means I may have to give up or compromise something important to me for the greater good of the community?
There are certainly ways to go about solicting info from a county or community that gathers data about income, belief systems, values, spending patterns etc.to inform planning processes.Do we want to invest in something like this? Are we ready?
I know that many of us are reviewing through our community councils the comprehensive plan for our area.. I think we should be sharing these before they are finalized so we understand the big picture.
Early Riser
I do believe there is the Klickitat County Economic Development in Goldendale 773-7060 whose job it is to attract jobs. My question is, why do we need to attract new residents? Do we want a town that is half vacant in the winter? What we do need are jobs and affordable housing for our children and grandchildren. Why do you feel that people who have lived here for years need to give up their way of life and take on city-type buildings? Why is it okay to replace mobile home parks with homes that year-round residents won't be able to afford?
So, where are the affordable homes?
I agree with pretty nearly everything that Shadow Girl posits as potential common ground for us to consider on this issue. And, Squeaky Wheel rightly suggests some of the appropriate issues for people to debate. However, if you look through all three of the postings on this subject so far, you see a lot of the use of the word "need", as in 'why do we need this or that'. One hears that question raised a lot in the anguished concerns expressed about growth by old citizens and new, alike. It is as if people think there is, or ought to be, an omnipotent force that gets to decide whether or not we "need" growth or new residents or to replace mobile home parks with higher cost homes. Interesting thinking from people who, for the most part, would otherwise probably think government should stay the heck out of their business.
I suggest that as long as people have that frame of reference they are not going to understand what can and cannot be done about these issues, and will therefore accomplish much less than if they would look at the situation realistically. I suggest that for this discussion to be productive people need to first understand a few realities of the situation:
First, White Salmon and the lifestyle that is available here have been discovered, just as it was previously discovered by the people who live here now, or their ancestors. More and more people want to come here and that isn't likely to change. This is a beautiful place in all senses of the word.
Second, this is America, after all, and that means that anyone who wants to move here can, and anyone who wants to sell their property to a newcomer who wants to move here can do so. Those things are going to happen. For every newcomer who lives in White Salmon now there is an old time resident who sold them, or their landlord, a piece of property, probably while making a good deal of money in the process.
Third, there are many opportunities for planning and regulating the type of growth that will occur here, but they are being squandered by the lack of a local will to tackle these issues realistically. People still want to debate whether or not we 'need' growth. It is like debating whether or not we 'need' the sun to rise tomorrow morning. It is going to happen.
Planning for the future is the only realistic way to try to deal with these changes that ARE going to happen. However, to be effective to meet the needs of everyone, planning needs to be done holistically. Some people want more jobs, some people want affordable housing, some people want lower taxes, some people want things to be the way they were 20 or 30 years ago. Maybe it is possible to achieve all those things simultaneously. I don't know. But, one thing I do know is that you can't achieve what every person wants for White Salmon without thinking about all the issues as interrelated and without planning comprehensively. For it to be productive, the debate needs to stop being about how growth can be stopped, and needs to start focusing on the future. In order to achieve what people want AND can realistically expect to have, the discussion needs to turn away from hoping more population won't come here any more and begin dealing with what we can plan for to make White Salmon the best community for the most people in the context of having here all the newcomers who are unquestionably going to be here. It needs to begin considering all the assets that we have here and how those can be used to create the community of the future that will accommodate both the new and the old. It needs to begin by having people come to grips with the only unchangeable thing there is about life: There is going to be change, and our community is no exception.
What we need is planning for people who want to build homes for their families and for the people who are already here; not planning for those who are projected to come. Why should my home, the town that I grew up in, be turned upside down for people who aren't here yet?
I believe zoning should reflect our lifestyle, and our lifestyle should be reflected through the zoning that the people of WhiteSalmon decide, not decided by the lifestyle of those who are coming.
Certain people own property and feel that they have the right to develop it with condo size housing. I understand their feelings. I believe in property rights, but I believe a community's rights come first.
So, if a property owner feels that he can put in a whore house, Wal-Mart, or prison facility, then the good folk of WhiteSalmon, I'm sure, would have a problem with that. The reason would be that any one of these things would cause some kind of harm to our well-being, or lifestyle as a community. Is relocating all of California, Denver, and parts of Michigan not gonna affect your lifestyle?
What if I told you that restrictions on the building condominiums would actually lower the cost of housing? The cost of housing is always a developer's first weapon pulled out of his briefcase.
All communities need diversity, not in just housing, but in jobs as well. Low skill, low paying jobs - particularly in the service industry, require low-end housing that continues to be replaced in White Salmon by more expensive housing units. While I can't argue that it is the rights of a property owner to replace those mobile home parks with more expensive condos, I have to remind everyone that not everyone is going to be making big bucks to pay for the condos & million dollar view homes. This area isn't just a view and a great place to windsurf to people like us - it's our roots. Our families moved here because there were jobs at the time; not because it was a great recreational place to live. We have never hesitated to pay for expansion of our library and schools and feel that quality teachers and good schools are essential. But, we shouldn't be paying in two months what our water bill should be for six just because some investors want to build a ton of condos for weekenders. And for some reason, I just don't trust that people who move here with trust funds are looking out for my welfare.
Post a Comment