ripple logo
Search_label2
Log In   |   Join RIPPLE
Email
Password
 
 
Not a RIPPLE member? Learn more and join here.
Jay_flint Does Rural Need a Metro?

The recent announcement of FERC's authorization of the Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility near Coos Bay got me thinking about the region surounding the proposed facility. What level of input did the surrounding region have in regards to this project?

In consideration of the local land use approval process, the decision was made at the county level because the proposed facility falls under Coos County jurisdiction. But what about the rest of the region? This project is a very large project and one that will affect many more people than just those within Coos County's jurisdiction (i.e. those living inside the county, but outside the incorporated cities). I'd bet that the residents of the region's cities, and surrounding counties for that matter, would have liked a greater input into the decision-making process (which is also magnified when considering the associated pipeline impacts), because the decision affects a much larger region than just the County.

Now, I'm not speaking 'for' or 'against' LNG facilities, I'm just using the Jordan Cove project as an example of a large scale project that affects a much larger region that the decision-making body's jurisdiction. What I am proposing is the consideration of a "Metro" style government (i.e. the one in the Portland metro area) built around our rural regional centers that incorporates the cities, counties, businesses and community leaders in a forum that balances regional goals with local planning efforts to develop a more comprehensive planning and development model for the region.

Metro defines itself as a regional roundtable where leaders, experts and the people of the region come together to shape its future. As our rural communities grow and development increases, things decided by one rural community will increasingly affect its neighboring communities. It seems to me that development activities such as these should receive the equal input of all affected communities, not just the one that has to approve it.

As our rural areas grow into each other, we ought to be looking at ways to build regional decision-making bodies that incorporate the entire rural region. This will promote more cohesive planning and development for the area and ensure that everyone gets a voice. It is one of the factors that led to the development of Metro, and perhaps it is time for our rapidly growing rural areas to do the same.



See all posts by Jay Flint.

2
COMMENTS
Eugene says
12.31.09 // 11:55 AM
I think that the idea of an ongoing group to consider projects and problems like those mentioned in the post is a really good one. I live in Dundee where there is lots of talk and thought about the pros and cons of a bypass regional or otherwise. One of the problems is that groups that meet to discuss this issue are formed just to talk about this one problem instead of considering more comprehensive solutions.
Erica says
01.21.10 // 04:26 PM
I think this is a really potent—and contentious—idea. I've been seeing a lot of discussions about the value of Metro and the people who hate it in a variety of venues: the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy did a press junket with their new film *Portland: Quest for the Livable City* last fall (they released it in April 2009), and the recent issue of GOOD magazine has an article about the Urban Growth Boundary with some interesting responses (http://www.good.is/post/pushing-the-limits/). How do you imagine the controversial aspects of a rural Metro would play out?

Join the conversation! First time contributing? View Comment Guidelines.



LIMIT 2,000 CHARACTERS