My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUBLIC COMMENT - JOSHUA SKOV (3-7-17)
>
OnTrack
>
CA
>
2017
>
CA 17-1
>
PUBLIC COMMENT - JOSHUA SKOV (3-7-17)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2017 1:48:09 PM
Creation date
3/7/2017 11:22:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CA
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
UGB ADOPTION PACKAGE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
3/7/2017
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
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
Comments on UGB Proposal • March 7, 2017 <br />To: Planning Commission and Planning staff <br />From: Joshua Skov • joshuaskov.eugenela~amail.com <br />I am writing in support of the current UGB proposal coming before the Planning Commission. I <br />will limit my comments here to questions of data and monitoring. <br />My comments are intended to preempt one key criticism I am hearing about this proposal: that <br />the data should be updated to be as recent as possible. This criticism is well-intentioned and on <br />its face legitimate, but in fact it ignores the recent past and our intentions for the future. Let me <br />explain. <br />The Envision Eugene Technical Resource Group (TRG) spent years and many hundreds of <br />volunteer hours working with staff and vetting methods, thinking, and tool-building to bring us <br />to the place we are now. As a result, some of the oldest data in use in the proposal may seem <br />"stale" to outside observers who wonder how we could be using out-of-date information in our <br />planning. But that view misses the fact we have extended our timeline precisely because we <br />have conducted such extensive analysis and due diligence. <br />More important, we should feel urgency to get to the next stage of the process in order to <br />implement our monitoring strategy, the impetus of which is Envision Eugene Pillar 7 ("Provide <br />for adaptable, flexible and collaborative implementation"). The TRG invested considerable time <br />in laying out an institutional framework for such on-going monitoring and implementation, but we <br />cannot begin that work until we approve this package and begin to implement that framework. <br />In other words, we must consider the opportunity cost of extending the process at this time by <br />delaying it with data updating. The longer we let the desire for the perfect be the enemy of the <br />good enough for now, the longer we postpone the creation of this important collaborative, <br />multi-stakeholder monitoring process, which really should be the place where we have these <br />deliberations on an on-going basis. With so much foundational work done, let us move quickly <br />to building the sustained collaborative effort that Pillar 7 envisions. In that process, we will <br />regularly revisit our land use model with new data and new ideas, and thereby realize the <br />"adaptable, flexible and collaborative implementation" that we are poised to carry out. <br />And as a final aside, it is important to note that, in using the data years in this proposal, the City <br />is entirely in compliance within state law. <br />In conclusion, I will point out that I too wish for the newest data, as I see evidence that local land <br />use and development have started to evolve in ways that suggest we will have to adjust our <br />assumptions and adapt our land use planning. But the best path toward that work is to approve <br />our current UGB proposal and move as swiftly as possible to the next phase. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.