Yamhelas Westsider Trail, Con: Trail nothing more than expensive boondoggle

##Mary Starrett

About the writer: Mary Starrett is a former Portland radio and TV personality now serving her third term as a Yamhill County commissioner. A graduate of Boston’s Emerson College, she makes her home in the Parrett Mountain area just this side of the Washington County border. She was long active in the Constitution Party and once ran for governor under its banner.

Yamhill County features the perfect mix of urban and rural, with comfortably sized cities, traded sector manufacturing, thousands of acres of forest and agricultural land and communities that still value caring for each other.

That said, our county faces significant budget issues. Limited resources, rising personnel costs, public safety concerns and increasingly burdensome unfunded state mandates are among the challenges we’re navigating.

[See also, Pro: Project is worth a look with fresh eyes]

But we are committed to maintaining quality services, and with the same tax rate we’ve had in place for a quarter century.

It’s been suggested the county consider a referendum gauging taxpayer support for an expensive, controversial recreational trail. Such a referendum could cost county taxpayers upwards of $70,000 — a hit to an already strapped Clerk’s Office budget.

Where would the money come from to fund such a referendum? And what would be the point?

I assume Yamhill County residents wouldn’t oppose a recreational trail if it were free, didn’t violate land use laws and earned support from those it might negatively impact.

But that’s not what we’re talking about. We are talking about a trail that would financially burden future taxpayers with a controversial, unfunded mandate that hurts our farmers and conflicts with land use laws designed to protect farmland.

When I joined the board of commissioners in June 2014, an expensive project called the Yamhelas Westsider Trail, aimed at turning former railroad right of way into a recreational trail, had already been approved by a former board. That was predicated on assurance by supporters that there would be no opposition from neighboring farmers and all necessary land use permits could be obtained.

Along the way, I learned commissioners had been misled, and it was costing taxpayers dearly. Yet, some would like to revive the project by misleading voters.

I asked the same three questions at the outset of my first term that I continued to ask for the next eight years, all without ever getting straightforward answers:

1) Does this project have land use approval?

2) What would this project cost?

3) How would this project be funded and maintained?

Here are the facts:

Local farmers oppose the Yamhelas Westsider Trail. The proposed trail runs afoul of Oregon’s farmland protection land use statutes. The proposed trail has already cost the county a significant amount in staff time and attorney fees. The proposed trail would likely cost county taxpayers millions more in unfunded mandates.

Adding to those negatives, the Oregon Supreme Court recently created significant new legal liability for local governments that own and operate places to recreate, including public trails. A person could sue a local government if they were injured while using a recreational trail for an unrelated purpose, say getting to school or work.

The Oregon Legislature just passed a law to remedy that liability, but it’s a temporary fix slated to sunset in two years. Barring an extension, any new trails could create a serious financial risk to the county.

As if those negatives weren’t concerning enough, some trail proponents have encouraged using the project to eventually revive rail use. That could effectively bring Portland’s troubled light rail system to our communities — a system that’s been plagued with violent crime and drug use.

Public records include an e-mail from then-Commissioner Casey Kulla to county staff on June 16, 2020, asking: “Is there a way we can push the rail part of this, as in, well, if we cannot put the trail here, let’s work on the rail together?”

In short, it’s an expensive referendum that doesn’t fit in our budget, wouldn’t do a thing to mitigate right-to-farm and food safety concerns and wouldn’t change the bottom line — that a proposed recreational trail runs afoul of state land use laws.

Any voter referendum would be wholly dishonest and misleading unless we asked such questions as: “Would you support increasing taxes to pay for an expensive recreational trail that could not secure land use approval anyway?” or “Do you support increasing the county’s legal liabilities?” or “Do you want to set the stage for extension of Portland’s dangerous public transit system into your community?”

Yamhill County is home to 17 beautiful and diverse parks, some of which have not been fully developed to their maximum recreational potential. I suggest we focus on turning those magnificent, underdeveloped spaces into welcoming recreational opportunities for our county instead of dredging back up the ill will and division this expensive and unlawful boondoggle has wrought.