Attendance

A crowd of about 180 people packed the 2nd floor county commission meeting room, a smaller 2nd floor meeting room and the downstairs lobby of the County Administration Building. An unofficial tally revealed that approximately 40 people were there to support the mediated "Settlement Agreement," while the vast majority of those present supported the approved 2002 Comprehensive Plan. Because so many wanted to speak, there was a sign-in sheet, and citizens were requested to speak for only 3 minutes. Official parties were granted more time, but they were also limited as to how long they could speak.

Attorneys for both sides, a representative from DCA and individual interveners made statements. Citizens were then given the chance to voice their concerns.

The Motion

Chair Rodney Long recognized Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut who made the motion to adopt the mediated "Settlement Agreement." After it was carried, the matter was open for discussion.

The "Settlement Agreement " Supporters

Attorneys in favor of the Settlement Agreement spoke only of compromise and the way it had been reached. No facts were presented to justify the claim that the approved 2002 comp plan violated any laws or took away any rights from property owners - the only basis on which a challenge to the 2002 plan would have been considered in a courtroom.

They denied any impropriety in emails and phone conversations which excluded participation by interveners and public but led to the terms and language of the agreement. They completely ignored the scheduled July 25th Administrative Hearing during which they would have been required to make any legal arguments that would prove that the approved 2002 plan was illegal.

Citizens who spoke in favor of the agreement identified themselves as farmers or members of the building community. They did not give any facts, either. Instead, they merely urged the commisison to vote to adopt the "mediated Settlement Agreement" at this meeting.

The Approved 2002 Comprehensive Plan Supporters

The many people who spoke asking the commissioners to vote NO on the motion to adopt the agreement made the following points :

• The agreement fails to protect wetlands
• Will cause many endangered species to be destroyed
• Will result in reduced water quality
• Will do nothing to prevent sprawl
• Will cause taxes to continue to rise.

(A jar of dirty well water was shown to the commissioners, but, for obvious reason, was not put in the permanent record.)

They pointed out that there had been 5 years of meetings during which all citizens had had the opportunity to make their views understood. Because most of the deveopment will be on the west side of the county, it is unlikely to provide low-cost housing. Commissioner Wheat noted that the commission had received at least 156 emails - only 8 of which supported the agreement. The remaining 148 were in favor of the approved 2002 Comp Plan.

They urged the commissioners to table the motion until after the July 25th Administrative Hearing.

The Vote

Commissioners Wheat and Byerly both said the public process of 5 years was being ignored and the motion should not be adopted.

Among their other comments:

• Commissioner Chestnut said she did not think all citizens had been represented in the the 5 years, and that is why she liked the agreement.
• Commissioner Pinkoson thought it would help increase low-cost housing.
• Chair Long thought the voters had elected two commissioners - Chestnut and Pinkoson - because they wanted the comp plan changes.

In the end, the agreement was adopted 3-2.

Ellie Schwab - July 19, 2003