The following was published in the "As I See It" column in the Corvallis Gazette-Times, May 4, 1998:
This is in regards to the city's claim, which was recently quoted in a Gazette-Times article on Seavy Meadows, that, "A review committee that includes neighbors of the property and and city officials has voted to approve the planners' recommendation."
I was one of three neighbors who were part of the Seavy Meadows Stakeholders Steering Committee, along with at least six representatives from city advisory boards. As neighborhood members, our purpose, as stated by the city, was to act as a conduit between the northeast neighborhood and city staff. In that capacity, we conveyed information from the steering committee meetings to our neighbors, and raised concerns brought to us by our neighbors.
The attitudes that both sides brought to the meeting were polarized from the beginning: neighbors wanting to maximize open space in the interest of wetlands preservation, and city staff being highly motivated to recover Bancroft debt money. Over the course of a year and a half, this never changed.
Often, those of us on the steering committee, who represented the northeast neighborhhod, commiserated about how we felt our involvement was symbolic only, so that a box could be checked-off on a sheet, claiming citizen involvement in the process.
When we (or one of our neighbors who made guest appearances) raised issues/concerns, city officials listened politely; but it always seemed apparent that the die was cast, and that our presence was merely part of the city's agenda to recoup as much of the Bancroft debt as possible and yet give the illusion of citizen involvement.
At no time were we ever led to believe that a vote would be held. At the last meeting of the Seavy Meadows Stakeholders Steering Committee, which I did not attend because of a family commitment, a vote was taken. Predictably, the city advisory board representatives voted unanimously pro-development, and northeast residents voted against. From that came the city's claim that the recommendation to build high-density, low-income housing on five acres was a decision born from the joint involvement of the city and northeast neighbors participating on the Seavy Meadows Steering Committee.
It's so ridiculous that it would be funny, were it not for the tragic impact on this small tract of wetland. A budget commissioner, who was on the steering committee with us, testified at the recent public hearing that wildlife "adapts to development." I think that statement speaks volumes on how much we were truly listened to.