The best governments listen and respond. The best neighbors activate and advocate. When those two forces coalesce, public confidence in elected officials is enhanced. Twice recently this has happened in our community, once each at the county and city levels.
With the best of intentions last year, Clark County officials began tinkering with the plan to develop Cougar Creek Community Park in the Felida area. Scheduled to become a 10-acre community park (as opposed to a smaller neighborhood park), the future for the public parcel at 11515 N.W. 16th Ave. was (and remains) bright, especially when compared with the past. Previously, developers had targeted the land for a 33-lot single-family development, much to the chagrin of nearby residents. Those plans fell through, however, and the county bought the land for $990,000, well below appraised value.
But 10 acres is a little small for a “community” park, which typically includes a parking lot, restrooms, sports fields and other infrastructure. Park planners prefer 20 acres for a community park. So county officials considered selling or trading half of the parcel, hoping to land another recession-era deal on more park land, still intending to build a neighborhood park on Cougar Creek. You can’t blame them for thinking outside the box and at least considering what could have been a boost to the county’s overall parks system.
Residents, of course, spoke up in defense of the 10-acre park plan. They made their opposition known in no uncertain terms at a meeting with county commissioners two weeks ago. They also flooded commissioners with e-mails, noting their totally valid argument: Stick with the plan, which was good to begin with. Abandon any consideration of changes that would give the residents less than what they were promised.
In retrospect, County Commissioner Steve Stuart said, the change was “worth researching, given the need to make the best use of land and other resources.” Good point. But on Wednesday the commissioners sided with the residents and kept to the original 10-acre promise. “We concluded that buying this property for a park was money well spent,” Stuart said in an Aug. 20 Columbian story by Paul Suarez. “It would be next to impossible to find an equivalent value within the same parks district,” Stuart added.
This means Felida might not receive all the benefits of a community park as one is defined, but they’ll still get their full 10-acre park. Good for them.
Also with the best of intentions last year, Vancouver city officials began tinkering with restrictions on new construction and home renovations in the Fruit Valley neighborhood. This area in west Vancouver includes about 300 older homes that were built during the wartime shipbuilding boom in the 1940s. In studying the new restrictions, the city officials certainly performed their due diligence, mailing fliers to the residents and holding several public meetings, which were lightly attended. The restrictions — which banned second-story additions taller than the roof line and bay windows facing the street, and regulated chimneys and roof pitches — were approved by a 6-1 vote of the Vancouver Planning Commission in June.
When news about the proposed restrictions got out, the next meeting was not lightly attended. Residents voted 100 to 5 against the guidelines. City officials reconsidered, and the city council on Monday night abandoned the plan. As The Columbian’s Andrea Damewood reported, the Fruit Valley neighborhood retains a subarea plan that focuses on transportation issues, encourages urban farming and community gardens and addresses other topics.
Again, the people spoke, and the politicians listened.
