Metro has not given enough weight to job creation and economic growth as it plans for regional growth, some business leaders told Metro councilors Wednesday.
“I’m concerned that we’re not being bold enough and that this plan doesn’t have an economic development strategy as a foundation for it,” said Susie Lahsene with the Port of Portland. “It just doesn’t feel that we’re really in favor of [job creation].”
“This is not an economic development plan,” responded Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder. “This is responding to the likely trends that will occur in terms of population growth and employment growth”
Burkholder and Metro Councilor Rod Park met Wednesday with the Columbia Corridor Association to discuss the recommendations contained in Metro chief operating officer Michael Jordan’s report, “Making the Greatest Place: Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region,” released Sept. 15. The report encourages channeling most growth into the existing urban growth boundary, investing in repairing and maintaining existing buildings and infrastructure, and holding Metro accountable for the goals it puts in place for itself and the region.
Corky Collier, executive director of the CCA, said that although Metro doesn’t draw up economic development strategies, Metro’s policies undoubtedly affect the economy. He then turned his questions toward economies the councilors would be familiar with.
“What is it that you see in these strategies that would increase jobs in your district?” Collier inquired.
Both Burkholder and Park cited traffic patterns in their districts. Burkholder discussed the difficulties in finalizing plans for the Columbia River Crossing, and Park talked about connections between I-84 and Highway 26 and the difficulties directing traffic and freight between those two main corridors.
Those answers didn’t satisfy Tim McCabe, director of Oregon Business Development Department.
“You’ve talked about bridge crossing, freight mobility, but not about jobs,” McCabe said.
Attorney Steve Schell asked about the councilors’ thoughts on undesignated areas. Park said undesignated lands are either undesignated (rather than being designated as either urban or rural reserves) because they aren’t likely to be considered for development in the future, while others are left undesignated to give planners flexibility.
But Burkholder saw it differently.
“In my mind, leaving it undesignated kind of defeats the purpose of having some certainty,” he said. He said leaving lands undesignated shifts Metro’s responsibility to another day. “Some of it is a punt, where it’s so difficult to call it one or the other so let’s just call it nothing.”
But once lands are designated for urban areas and industrial development, it’s not the end of the road. Funding the necessary improvements to make industrial lots ready for companies to use is difficult, Burkholder said.
“We actually have land inside the urban growth boundary that we can’t say ‘go ahead, build here’ because there’s no sewers, no roads,” he said. “We don’t have the resources to go out there and make that land shovel-ready.”
– by Sean Breslin