October 20th, 2006

One particular breed of public official always seems to win election to the Clark County Board of Commissioners.

Yes, it's a partisan seat, but it rarely attracts the red meat firebrands found at the political extremes. Instead, voters seem to favor measured, temperate types: friendly to business but environmentally sensitive, supporters of mass transit but not against cars, pro-growth but not at any speed.

Clark County voters will get that type again this fall no matter if Steve Stuart or Bruce Hagensen wins the Nov. 7 election for the board's District 3 seat. They've run a high-profile but acrimony-free campaign this fall highlighting not so much their differences as their similarities.

Both are fluent in the growth-speak required of a county commissioner. Hagensen was on the Vancouver City Council for 14 years, eight of them as mayor. Stuart was executive director of the Friends of Clark County before he was appointed county commissioner in 2004 and elected in 2005 to the remaining year of the term. ~ Don Hamilton, Columbian staff writer

Steve Stuart
1) What's Clark County done wrong in its growth planning?

We had 20 or 30 years of rapid growth before we started planning for it. We reacted to whatever we had. For a long time, there was no one looking for creative ways to do it better. What we got was whatever people had put up, and we're dealing with the impact.

2) What tools are needed?

One is to have principles for figuring out how we will grow. In 2005, the Board of County Commissioners created a long list of principles and values of how we will grow. They're our tools to be sure we're efficiently spending road and infrastructure dollars and minimizing the conversion of productive farmland.

3) What role can the county play in encouraging new jobs?

One thing we can do is turn things around regarding the number of jobs per household in Clark County. We have to get out of being a bedroom community for Portland.

4) How do we do that?

There are a lot of steps. Until recently, we haven't been aggressive in talking with the private sector and figuring out what we need. Once you have the land and the roads set up, you streamline permitting. A two-year wait for a permit means you may go someplace else.

5) What's needed to improve the I-5 corridor?

The first thing we need to do is turn around the commute. We need jobs east on Highway 500, east on Highway 14 and north on I-5. It would benefit every member of the community, because all these people spending two hours a day in their cars could spend that time with their families and helping their communities.

6) Do you mean creating more jobs close to housing like Portland?

We're not even close. Government reacted in the past to whatever we got with no real planning. We need to make sure we can live and work and play within same community. Now we're trying to re-integrate our communities. Whatever comes in should be compatible with our existing uses. I should be able to enjoy the neighborhood where I live without fearing something incompatible is going to move in next door.

7) That brings us to Initiative 933. It would make government pay when regulations reduce property values. For it or against it?

I'll be voting no. There obviously would be a financial impact. A lot of time and energy will be necessary to evaluate claims made under 933. Even after talking to county planners and lawyers, there's still a lot of uncertainty.

8) What do we do with the I-5 crossing?

We've got to do something to relieve congestion on the bridge and in the corridor. Bottom line: We have an old span with no shoulders, three narrow lanes and an interchange system that's clogged. We'll have to have something that's not a lift span.

9) That sounds like a new bridge.

You have to have a new bridge span for I-5 traffic. The question is whether we keep the existing bridges for some other uses and give ourselves some options. I don't know the answer to that. What's the most cost-effective version?

10) Is there a place for light rail in your version?

Mass transit is in my vision. We have the density downtown for light rail but not outside the city of Vancouver right now or in the near-term. That doesn't mean we don't get there, but it's not there now. If light rail is proposed, voters who'd have to pay for it should vote on it.

11) Will you vote to let the cities expand their urban growth areas?

My bottom line is I will never sign off on anything that will mean higher taxes and less service for people living here. I want to make sure growth pays its way. It doesn't have to be all impact fees. Transportation benefit districts or local improvement districts are two options.