My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Testimony and Legal Arguments by 7-9-18 (updated 7-11-18)
>
OnTrack
>
WG
>
2018
>
WG 18-3
>
Testimony and Legal Arguments by 7-9-18 (updated 7-11-18)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/11/2018 3:06:37 PM
Creation date
7/11/2018 3:06:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
WG
File Year
18
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
Lombard Apartments
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
7/9/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
198
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
resources available for citizen involvement has never been reported, so <br />we cannot know what’s available or if more could be done. <br />“A bylaws committee of the Planning Commission has made sure that <br />citizen participation is at the forefront of discussions.” The work of the <br />bylaws committee is not available on the county website. <br />“The Citizen Involvement Committee cannot meet because it would <br />require additional staff time.” First of all, the county is required to <br />ensure that the committee has adequate resources for citizen <br />involvement. This is established by law. Second, nothing in Oregon <br />administrative rules or the Lane County code requires that staff attend <br />Citizen Involvement Committee meetings or write its annual plan. The <br />committee is free to operate on its own and not be subjected to Lane <br />County’s bureaucratic management structure. <br />Yet in response to the Planning Commission’s report, members of the <br />Board of County Commissioners were effusive in their praise: “Great <br />report.” “You put in long hours.” “Lane County goes further than most <br />counties.” <br />Such sentiments are no substitute for Oregon administrative rules or the <br />Lane code. This reveals a contradiction: While Lane County expects <br />taxpayers to comply with land use laws, neither our elected officials nor <br />their administrative staff follow state and county laws governing citizen <br />involvement. <br />I am not seeking an extraordinary level of citizen involvement effort -- <br />just simple compliance with the law. Compliance with Goal 1 is good <br />policy. It provides an annual analysis of how our community is being <br />served, and brings forth suggestions for improving citizen involvement. <br />It is not complex, nor does it require a significant investment of time or <br />money. <br />Dennis Sandow of Eugene, a small business owner who studies social <br />collaboration and well-being in business and governmental <br />organizations, served on the Lane County Planning Commission from <br />2010 to 2014. <br />3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.