Rural communities are on alert for unreliable facts impacting future designs of their lands. Perpetuating old methodology used in the past to update the 2016 Comprehensive Plan isn’t only wrong, it’s unlawful. Superior Court orders said, “The board’s (hearings board) decision to uphold the adequacy absent additional environmental analysis regarding designations and changes to the pattern of rural development was clearly erroneous. The county’s rural and resource lands regulations are inconsistent with the Growth Management Act” (April 4, 1997, Judge E. Poyfair, 96-2-00080-2).
Clark County Citizens United recently spoke to the judge about the 1997 case. The 1994 plan was flawed because the county used an unauthorized formula to craft the plan. The county invented the desired outcome first, then manipulated the facts to subordinate the outcome. This created a completely senseless plan that altered the county’s unique rural character for 20 years.
Serious reforms are needed to prevent unrealistic data that is woven into the county’s plan update. This work must withstand scrutiny from the hearings board and the courts. Councilor David Madore’s excellent research presented Oct. 20 stands in stark contrast with data in the draft SEIS and reveals many inaccuracies. This data influences the county council’s policies, and must be reliable. It’s the council’s job to provide oversight.
