One to watch

It’s rare that a City of Portland issue pitting affluent landowners and business interests against citizen advocates and non-profit groups is duked out in public early in the process – before the matter reaches City Council where often the outcome is a done deal one way or the other. Lee van der Voo in today’s Tribune reports on a meeting at the Bureau of Planning between industrial stakeholders and environmentalists negotiating for the future of the Willamette River. Zoning, bank stabilization and landscaping, the Greenway trail and design standards, and more are up for review and changes under The River Plan and River Renaissance.

Lee’s article outlines the major issues. His best summary sentence:

“The challenge for city planners, when the two city-sponsored talks are done, will be to draft a plan that replaces existing zoning, which is focused on land use, with a new strategy that balances natural resources with industrial development in the Portland Harbor.”

The River Renaissance and River Plan processes have been in progress for seven years, and apparently are just now getting to the nitty-gritty of “Yes, that research is all very nice, but what are we going to do about it?”

Watch the lobbying reports over the next few quarters, to see who is going directly to Council rather than (or as well as) working in public hearings at the Planning Commission.

And note another key line in Lee’s article:

“Input from the task force will be combined with input from other Portland residents to help planners reach a recommendation.”

Translation: Planners will be watching to see how much public support there is for environmentally-friendly regulatory changes for the river, its banks, and adjacent businesses.

The property owners and lobbyists connected with industrial lands alongside the Willamette and Columbia rivers are among the most powerful in Portland. Politicians know Portlanders care about the environment and clean water in the river, but they will need to see public support before imposing regulations and programs to protect those values, knowing that the changes may impact the economy of both the city and the individual businesses.

It doesn’t have to be an either-or question of “Economy or Environment?”, like “Paper or Plastic?”, of course. Both can be served by careful balancing of the new Plan. But Lee’s article suggests the two sides at the table currently don’t see it that way. Let the lobbying begin.