Home field is no advantage in growth game

I magine if you will, your first experience with baseball. You know, the one where you hold the bat the wrong way? And when you do get to base, the big boys tell you you’re “out” because you went to third base and not first? That was my experience last month during a two-day hearing about a proposed development in my neighborhood.

At the hearing, the developer’s attorney scoffed at the testimony of local residents and referred to the Ponderosa Neighborhood Association as “the enemy.” How is it that as concerned citizens exercising our civic duty we can be called the enemy?

In the last 15 years, much has happened in our little neighborhood. The Growth Management Act, intended to protect the rural character of our communities and provide for local input on land-use decisions, was adopted in 1990. An Urban Growth Boundary was established near our property. Over the past several years zoning changes were quietly made. Our 1- to 5-acre lots are now listed as Low Density Residential and qualify for subdivision.

Typical of what is happening elsewhere in the state, the 39-acre Ponderosa Ridge project has a proposed housing density seven times greater than the surrounding area. Laws such as the Growth Management Act have allowed these types of properties at the edge of our urban areas to be denuded and developed, with the local communities ultimately paying the price.

I once tried explaining the rules of baseball to my 5-year old daughter. I couldn’t. While the principle of running around the square on the field made sense, all the other rules were too complicated. The Ponderosa Neighborhood Association feels just like my little girl. Although we know the basics – hire an attorney at our own expense to defend ourselves from the actions of a developer who intends to make a profit – we find ourselves in the midst of a game where the rules are not in our favor.

This game begins with the tiny advertisement in the Legal section of the newspaper – you know, the section that some of us need special glasses to read. I didn’t happen to read it. I am sure I never received the generic mailing that said “some zoning changes may occur.” I would have objected, if I had been aware of what was happening. In fact, I would have appealed the zoning decision, if I had known it was possible to do so “within ten days of discovery.”

Here is another important rule: Citizens who testify at a public hearing are not experts, professionals or consultants, so their testimony is less credible. The fact that we have lived in the area for a good part of our lives is irrelevant. Our life experiences and countless unpaid hours of research are less valid than the testimony of the “expert” witnesses who neither reside in the neighborhood nor understand its dynamics.

Finally, according to the rules of procedure, we can testify only at the end of a long day. Our carefully prepared words get cut short so that the attorneys and other staff members can get home to their families.

As we embark on the mission to save our neighborhood, we must dig through government Web sites that have little useful content and are difficult to search. We must also make personal visits to the local governmental offices on our own time and at our own expense. Unlike the developer’s team and the governmental staff, we haven’t been paid to participate. For some of us, it is time off from our regular employment and lost income.

The people of our neighborhood have much to lose and little to gain from the development as it is currently proposed. We have been playing in a game where the developer owns the bat and the ball. Can our society continue to follow these rules and arrive at land-use decisions? Certainly. Will the decisions result in strengthening our neighborhoods and social fabric of our communities? Probably not.

Our sense of fair play says that the teams should be evenly matched and the rules equitable in order for everyone to benefit.

When developers are only expected to meet the minimum procedural requirements of the county ordinances, neighborhoods lose the opportunity to address development and growth in a wise manner. The concept of “productive harmony,” a major tenet of our state and federal environmental laws, is defeated. As a result, our land use ordinances have become an end point when they should be a road map.

With every crisis there is opportunity. The opportunity for the Ponderosa neighborhood is the chance to integrate development into existing topography, infrastructure and cultural patterns.

It is time to insist that our governmental officials recognize the will of all citizens, not just those who have the professional or legal resources to work the system. We demand the opportunity to engage in collaborative decision-making, where all parties – the community, the developer and the government – are fairly and equitably heard.

I have seen amazing changes happen when communities embrace this concept. In doing so, everyone benefits and enemies shake hands.