Getting a group to agree on anything can be an exercise in frustration. Think of how tough it can be just getting, say, half a dozen friends to agree on where to have lunch.
When something important and potentially controversial is at stake, forging agreement is even harder. But often, like in the case of county growth planning, potential disagreements make collaboration all the more important.
That’s why Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon was right to veto an ordinance passed by the County Council that would have put new limits on the role of a regional work group that makes recommendations on county planning policies. The group, Snohomish County Tomorrow, is made up of county officials and representatives from the county’s cities. Together, they work to forge agreement on how the county will grow.
Cities have a critical role to play in this process because they are expected to absorb the bulk of the county’s future growth. Most of that growth will be channeled into urban growth areas that eventually are expected to be annexed into cities. That’s a less attractive option to a city that hasn’t had meaningful input in the planning of its urban growth area.
In a guest commentary on this page last week, County Council Chairman John Koster wrote that the ordinance, in part, was an effort to clarify that Snohomish County Tomorrow is an advisory group, not a regional government. That is entirely correct, but it is also beside the point. The state Growth Management Act requires counties and their cities to agree on a process for adopting county-wide planning policies. The simple fact that 10 of Snohomish County’s cities criticized or opposed the ordinance indicates a lack of agreement on that process, and raises the likelihood that the ordinance wouldn’t have withstood a legal challenge.
The ordinance also sought to dictate to cities how they should organize their representation in Snohomish County Tomorrow, requiring greater involvement by elected officials rather than staff. That was an overstep by the County Council. City elected officials should be able to decide for themselves how they organize such efforts. If there is concern that too many city elected officials are out of touch with the process, that should be addressed as part of the Snohomish County Tomorrow process.
Reardon’s veto keeps a collaborative planning process on track. Surely, there is room for improvement in that process, and the County Council members who voted for the ordinance should now resolve to work closely with the cities to make such improvements.
It might not be easy, but it could be the first step toward an even more effective spirit of cooperation.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.