A reply to Mayor Lenahan

Dear Mayor Lenahan, City Councilors, and Yes for North Plains,

I saw your recent open letter and want to thank you for engaging in the discussion publicly and putting forth facts and reasoning. I agree that an open, clear debate, and a fact-based approach best serves good elections and good government, and I would still be very happy to have this public debate in person should any of you find yourselves available. While I have fundamental disagreements with you on this issue, I recognize that the signers of the open letter care deeply about North Plains and want a strong future for the city. I respect this and I respect the work that you’ve put in to make North Plains what it is today.

I do, however, wish to correct the record on a few of the statements in your letter as well as draw out two of the major differences our campaigns have. In your letter there are some unsupported assertions that I hope you can either clarify or withdraw, and a few points where I think more facts will make the record more clear – I discuss those first below. But more importantly, I believe that we at Friends of North Plains Smart Growth see the issues around democracy and inclusion in very different lights than do the signers of your letter. We believe, in a healthy democracy, people should be included based not on their political power to elect certain officials, but on how much a certain decision affects them. Furthermore, we believe in the democratic process and the, sometimes adversarial, checks and balances built into the layers of our government. We do not believe that advocating for a measure is “bullying” voters nor do we believe that it is inappropriate for citizen groups to organize and provide information – especially when that information is lacking in the official process. In fact, this very process of adversarial but democratically bound argument is central to the history of North Plains itself. We remember, and have found many in the city who remember, the many campaigns around annexation that were initiated by outside homebuilding interests, supported by some on the Yes campaign today, and frequently opposed by the neighbors and the residents of the city working together. 

Corrections to the record: 

First, as it is first in your letter, I’d like to respond to the charge that I have made “statements that simply are not true.” I have spoken and written extensively in public on the UGB issue and I have made every effort to ensure that what I say is strictly accurate. As you know, when I make assertions such as the council's reliance on “incorrect information” for passing the UGB plan originally, I cite State documents, give meeting minutes and timestamps so you can follow up on my evidence. When I claim that the infrastructure will likely cost millions of dollars, our group points to studies of similar areas in Hillsboro and an Order of Magnitude study on this plan done by a very experienced city planner. All of this is in the record and on our website should you wish to track it down. There are, of course, areas that are more a matter of opinion and values but, in those, I endeavor to ensure my statements and the official statements of our group are based in fact and supported by experts where appropriate. It is notable that, despite accusing me of falsehoods and misinformation here and in other venues, this letter does not list a specific or verifiable instance where I lied or misinformed the public. Should you have such evidence I would be happy to look at it and, should I be in err, publicly correct the record. 

Secondly, as it relates to public process, our group has not said that North Plains had no public process, only that it was done at the minimum level and was not an inclusive process. While other cities, including North Plains’ neighbors inside and outside of Metro, put up signs and send out postcards to all residents (and often all in the area or zip code) when major plans are changing, North Plains stuck to informing only those already in the know: those who check the city website for meeting notices, were on the city’s email list, or would be added in the new UGB area. Neither the city nor the Yes campaign have been able to demonstrate a single act intended to bring in folks who were not already involved, a single act that reached out and encouraged broad citizen participation. And, though there are no records that I have seen, by the Mayor’s own acknowledgement, these meetings went forward with almost no observers and little participation outside the appointed member of the subcommittee and the lobbyists for the landowners who want their land included. We believe that this is not a process that should have been or should be accepted. The lack of public participation should not have been written off by saying that the decisions are made by those who show up. These rare and major decisions – the decisions that affect all of us for generations- need to have buy-in and input from a wide swath of those who would be most affected be they residents of the town or the neighboring community. Anything less is a failed process and should have stopped there until real engagement could have been achieved.

Third, I wish to briefly address the “undesignated lands” and the Grand Bargain of 2014. We do not argue that North Plains can not expand onto these lands or that they are equivalent to rural reserve. We argue that they are exactly what they say they are - undesignated. Not reserved exclusively for either an urban or a rural future. As such, the city may expand onto them but must have, as every other city must have, a plan that shows an orderly transition to urbanization and a respect for the working lands around them. North Plain’s plan, the biggest by percentage ever in the history of UGBs, is not inappropriate because of where it expands the UGB but because of how much and how recklessly it expands the UGB. Furthermore, the three plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit that resulted in the Grand Bargain and were not only “in the room” but at the very center of the deal making, have all donated publicly to our campaign because this campaign is a continuation of the work they did in the twenty-teens. Our group has the support - in our campaign and legal work to defend the right to vote - from land use groups across the state. The Yes campaign, meanwhile, has large financial backing from the Portland Metro Area Realtors’ Association and an out of state investment firm that doesn’t make its identity easily searchable. Voters pamphlet statements include support from Mr. Hunnicutt, an avowed enemy of the land use system. Many who support Oregon’s land use system and many who are dedicated to weakening it see North Plains not as a “city that’s done everything right” but as an egregious example - one where we may stretch the concept to a UGB to the very breaking point. Some, such as Mr. Hunnicutt and the Realtors' Association have long sought such an example, others, especially farmers in the immediate area, have long feared one. A quick look at who has lined up on which side will let any observer know which side supports Oregon’s land use planning system.

Different understandings of Democracy and Inclusion

In this last section I think it is appropriate, rather than refute or correct points in your letter, to draw out what I think we see as a major difference in how democracies should make decisions and how we, as a community, should plan for our future. I think that, for understandable reasons, you as leaders in the city, construe the city’s community and particularly its decision making community, as smaller and more isolated – more on its own – than it truly is. While this is understandable and the vast majority of decisions made by city councils do only or primarily affect their own residents, I believe that we are all called upon to seek a broader community that stretches through the familiar – the people you speak to on a walk or text after a meeting – to talk to people you haven’t met or don’t understand. I think the history and the future of North Plains is intrinsically tied to the amazing working lands around it and that the borders of the community do not now nor have they ever stopped at a line drawn by a UGB or an annexation. In this case, a case that disproportionately affects your farming neighbors, common sense, neighborliness, and simple fairness demand that you listen and take seriously the concerns of those affected by the UGB and understand how it will impact both your city and the region before you embark on such an extraordinarily ambitious plan.

Our group believes in the direct democracy guaranteed in Oregon’s constitution. Many of the same people who are working for a Yes vote and “looking forward to the voters affirming the City Council’s 2023 Ordinance” also worked hard to prevent this from going before the voters. The city council voted, despite not having any authority over elections whatsoever, to have the legally qualified referendum removed from the ballot. This attempt to avoid hearing from the citizens of North Plains has gone on despite being told by a judge that the referendum would go before the voters and that:

Elections laws should be liberally construed to the end that people should have the opportunity to express opinions concerning vital matters to their welfare. Expression, not suppression, tends toward good government. The great constitutional privilege of the citizen to exercise his sovereign right to vote should not be taken away by narrow construction. If the statue is doubtful, we think the doubt should be resolved in favor of expression of opinion.

Nonetheless, just two weeks ago the city’s lawyer filed for summary judgment in an attempt to have the referendum disqualified and the votes left uncounted. This attempt failed as it was another attempt at suppression in favor of expression. In contrast, our group believes that the public has a right guaranteed to them to weigh in on matters of importance. If this right is not honored early in the process, then our constitution makes provisions, in these extraordinary circumstances, for a referendum and taking the final choice directly to the people. We support this right and believe it fundamental to both Oregon’s democracy and to accountability in good governments.

Our group further believes that, in matters that have lasting and major effects on a community, that that community should be intentionally and inclusively involved in the planning and decision making. This leads not only to more buy-in (and avoids the sort of campaigning we are having now and have seen repeatedly in North Plains when over ambitious plans are imposed top down) but to a better plan. The city’s ambitions for more jobs and a more diverse tax base could be achieved with far less land than is called for in this plan. In fact, the jobs-to-acre envisioned in the planning stage of the EOA are lower than any urban employment lands we could find in the state. The infrastructure costs are likely far beyond what the city can afford and the limitations in the physical layout of the city and infrastructure available make much of this plan extremely impractical to build. Had the city been seeking greater expert and citizen input they could certainly have discovered this before we were as far down the path as we are now. But the city council, without seeking greater input and by avoiding or marginalizing opposition, passed a plan that has major oversights and likely will not achieve the very goals it intends. We can do better and, after a No vote, I am sure the city, with input from many in and around the city, will do better.

Our group believes that, as these processes go forward, residents of the area and other interested parties should be included based on how greatly they will be affected by the plan (or by the knowledge they bring to the table in the case of outside experts). They should not be included, as they have been to date, by their relative power within the North Plains electoral system. While your letter and many public statements from the signers have decried the influence of outside groups, it is clear that both the city councilors and the city are very comfortable with outsiders being involved with and even crafting the direction of the city’s growth. Lobbyists for the landowners seeking inclusion in the UGB testified publicly to the county to say how easy it was for them to get meetings with the city and the elected officials. Dan Diaz, the economic director for Hillsboro, helped write the EOA that this UGB expansion depends on. The Yes campaign, as far as the information is publicly available, seems almost entirely funded and run by outside interests. At least by a look at the number of yard signs in town and the number of contributions on the Secretary of State’s website, “Yes for North Plains” enjoys very little public support in North Plains, outside those who signed this letter.

Personally, I do agree with you that North Plains is a very welcoming community. As you know, it is a part of my community as well and I am proud to be a part of it. Over the past 8 months I have knocked on hundreds of doors and spoken to hundreds of people about the UGB expansion. I rarely go a full street without meeting someone who has bought vegetables from me, toured the farm, or knows my family from schools or playgrounds. I always introduce myself as a farmer just east of town and, apart from some of those on the city council, have never been told I am an outsider or that I shouldn’t be involved in North Plains politics. Quite the opposite. Most people I speak to are happy to hear from a farmer on how the UGB affects both the city and the farmland. The vast majority share my concern about our first class farmland and our ability to feed ourselves and produce agricultural products in the future. Folks in North Plains, whether they’re descended from the farmers who originally settled the area and lived here all their lives or moved in a year ago to new housing, recognize that the working lands around them are not only pretty and a source of pride but a valuable and integral part of their community. A part of their community that they believe, as we believe, should have a voice.

Friends of North Plains Smart Growth believes that, as the planning for the city moves forward after a No vote, that the facts of the expansion should be put before as broad an audience as possible and that those facts should be both approachable and well researched. That means going beyond what is legally required to meet what is morally required as we change the landscape and the nature of our communities for the foreseeable future. We want a plan that takes inclusion seriously and on the basis of who is affected rather than who can easily show up. We want a plan that centers and considers the facts rather than the ambitions of the council and works to make North Plains stronger and more resilient without unduly harming the lands around it or the rural nature of the town. We want a plan that seriously considers – and understands – both the benefits and the costs of expansion. We want a better plan and look forward to the work required to make one. The work that starts with a No vote by May 21st.

Thank you again for your time and your work for our community.

Aaron Nichols