Focus Groups 2000

For the second year in a row GVMC conducted 12 sub-regional focus group sessions, including planning commissioners and elected officials from both GVMC member and non-member municipalities. The focus groups were divided into six GVMC-defined sub-regional focus areas (see map below). The sessions were conducted during the last two weeks of September in conjunction with the Blueprint's PIE (Public Information and Education) committee's survey of the metropolitan area.

At last years focus groups we learned that some form of regional planning in our metro region was felt to be necessary by most panel participants and that the 6 geographic areas we are calling "sub-regional planning areas" made sense as way to accomplish this. In this years focus groups we wanted to explore reactions to the proposed Blueprint II planning process and to find out if, and what form of organizational effort would be best suited for each of the various "sub-regions" throughout the area.

The continuation of these focus group meetings is recommended on a periodic basis in order to give local leaders an opportunity to come together to discuss, coordinate, and plan for future land use planning issues.

Each of the 90-minute focus sessions addressed a variety of issues. Among the topics discussed were:

Thoughts on GVMC's Blueprint II planning process
If there were any current regional projects or groups in the sub-regional area
Current issues and concerns for each sub-regional area
If the group was open to the idea of GVMC coordinating and conducting regularly scheduled sub-regional meetings
What type of sub-regional meetings should occur

The West Metro focus groups voiced that currently one of the biggest concerns is the need to improve the "infrastructure" in the area. Traffic issues need to be addressed, roads need to adapt to the growing population of the area, and traffic easements need to be put in place. They concluded that it is better to support the inevitable growth of the area rather than fight it. Open land preservation is not a big concern at this time. Those present agreed that a future West Metro Area was favorable, and should start as informal meetings with a delegated Planning Commissioner from each area. Once a direction is established elected officials could be asked to get involved, and meetings might need to become more formal.

On the other hand the East Metro Focus groups stated that they would like to better manage growth and are of the opinion that new infrastructure leads to more growth. They would like to preserve agriculture and open lands and limit the number of billboards, cell towers and mobile home parks and development in the area. Those present agreed that an East Metro group would be beneficial and would like to see a regionally structured group formed between planning commissions.

The Fruit Ridge focus groups main concern is to maintain and preserve the "ridge" and its existence. Current regional groups include Ridge Economic Area of Partners and the North Kent Townships Association. Unfortunately the costs to maintain agricultural lands is becoming a hardship for local farmers while younger generations aren't willing or can't afford to take over the farm, so many of farmers are willing to sell their land for development. Most members present thought it was a good idea that 1 Planning Commissioner and 1 Elected Official from each municipality of the region meet informally as a discussion group to articulate the rising economic concerns of preserving agricultural lands.

The Rogue River focus groups expressed many concerns about organizing a sub-regional group including:

Whether to be a part of the already existing Rogue River Watershed Council. Some were of the opinion that the name might suggest the aim of the group to be purely watershed quality
Some felt that transportation, utilities, sewer/water, and development should be the main focus of the group
There were also questions raised of whether it would be just another group with no authority, another meeting to attend, and another failed attempt at organizing a group surrounding the Rogue River

Others voiced that there needed to be a focus on both water quality and land use issues. For example, the Courtland Mobile Home Park development location. It may have a good location in accordance to transportation, but a bad location according watershed quality. Some members of the groups agreed that there would need to be an important issue to make another meeting worthwhile to attend, while others felt that one Planning Commissioner and one Elected Official of each municipality of the region should meet periodically.

The Southbelt focus groups agreed that the major issues that need to be addressed in the region include:

How to make decision about utility extensions to the southeast or southwest and what criteria to use
Airport Impacts
Road Systems - consistent treatment by all communities
Transit Issues

The attitude of most people regarding the construction of the Southbelt is that it was inevitable and that everything will be "ok" although some may not realize how much development is already approved and will happen in the area. All those present agreed that organizing a regional Southbelt group is a good idea, however time and staffing is limited. It was suggested to have regular informal meetings with a possible corridor orientation consisting of Planning Commissioners and Elected Officials from each municipality in the region.

The Urban Metro focus groups had a mixed reaction regarding the creation a sub-regional planning group. The elected officials generally felt that each municipality has their own individual focus with different planning issues and no common interests. It was stated that once REGIS was up and running that most, if not all information on participating municipalities could be accessed and shared. On the other hand, the planning officials felt that forming an Urban Metro sub-regional group was a good idea. It would provide a time in which the municipalities could meet as a "networking group" to share ideas. Discussions could focus on traffic calming, pedestrian-friendly issues, redevelopment, neighborhoods, codes, etc. vs. land use planning since most Urban Metro area is already development.

The majority of elected officials and planning commissioners seem to be favorably inclined toward having a sub-regional group meeting regularly in hopes to help municipalities come together to integrate their concerns and problems. However, there is a skepticism expressed about the nature of such a body. Some criticisms were expressed about having "another layer of government" and/or one more meeting to attend, as well as continuing failed efforts in the region. In general, there was moderate to enthusiastic support expressed for GVMC to be the body to staff, facilitate and offer input for each sub-regional area to come together to discuss, coordinate, and plan for future land use planning issues.

Return to Top