Two sides, one solid argument, no easy answers

In a meeting last week, Elmore County's Planning and Zoning Commission began the daunting task of possibly amending the county's comprehensive plan. This multi-chapter document ultimately determines the fate of all future growth in the county -- agricultural, residential, commercial and industrial.

Last updated in 2004, the comprehensive plan apparently became a roadblock of sorts. Some blamed it for impeding industrial growth in the county. As the planning and zoning representatives debated the issue for an hour and a half last week, it all focused on whether removing one word from the plan opens new possibilities or becomes a Pandora's Box of sorts that some on the committee don't dare open.

Four of the county commissioners agreed that removing that one word -- only -- serves to encourage heavy industrial growth within Elmore County. They felt the current verbiage restricts these types of industries to the Simco Road area on the county's west side and discourages outside developers from even considering Elmore County.

On the other side of the table, Chairman Nick Nettleton and two other committee representatives don't want to rush into a plan that would "fast track" conditional use permits for these industries and ruin the idyllic life residents in Elmore County enjoy.

In this case, both sides have extremely valid points with equally legitimate concerns. Unfortunately, this issue doesn't come with a one-size-fits-all solution.

Communities across Elmore County struggle with increasing unemployment figures, combined with deep cuts in budgets affecting everything from city improvements to school programs. It's obvious that new industries here would provide long-term economic relief and put people back to work. But at the same time, how much will people here want to sacrifice in the name of "progress?"

Consider the hotly debated issue regarding a proposed nuclear power plant near Hammett. Despite the promise of new jobs if the project moves forward here, it's obvious that county residents will only give their blessing to certain types of heavy industry, especially if someone tries putting to close to their communities. For them, it's a NIMBY -- short for "not in my back yard."

Also consider the plight of Glenns Ferry. After its potato processing plan shut down two years ago, the city lost its primary source of jobs second only to the crisis it faced 50 years ago when Union Pacific closed its freight yard there. Without the promise of new industry -- despite the availability of a major highway, dedicated rail lines, power and water -- the economic future of Glenns Ferry remains fragile at best.

This is where the commission faces its biggest fight. Where does it draw the line, and how much will this group wilfully sacrifice for the good of the county? Will an amended plan make Elmore County a better place to live, work and play? Or will a simple word change ultimately tear down the simple, quiet life that encouraged so many people to come here and stay?

At this point, there are no easy answers; just a lot of unanswered questions mixed together with a lot of uncertainty.

Along with all these questions, here's another good one. Despite this meeting's importance, something equally vital was missing: public support.

With so much riding on the outcome of this meeting, county growth and development officials expected a full house at War Memorial Hall, even though public input was not included on the workshop's agenda. The department brought in two deputy sheriffs to maintain law and order in the off chance someone in the audience tried to disrupt the meeting. This actually happened months ago during public meetings over the proposed nuclear power plant.

Instead, only two members of the public (not including yours truly) sat quietly at the meeting with one jotting down notes as the council planning and zoning commission debated whether or not to amend the county's comprehensive plan.

It seems the majority of people in Elmore County only become interested in these issues after our elected officials make an unpopular decision. Far too often, too many people in the community choose to take no active role in our local government until they have something to complain about. Then they spend considerable time and energy trying to get those decisions changed to their liking.

Here's a great example. Three votes followed later by a coin toss settled a contentious school board election last November. Instead of spending six months debating the issue after the election, what if more than 93 people showed up last May and took time to vote.

Also consider a recent election involving a water district on Mountain Home's west side. It took a coin toss to resolve a three-way tie in that election. Why did so many eligible voters let fate determine the outcome of that election versus spending 15 minutes to cast a ballot?

Come to think of it, how much time and money was spent to resolve these elections? Were these added expense avoidable?

Elmore County's Planning and Zoning Committee faces a decision that some may later call the county's saving grace or its downfall. I wonder how many people -- or more to the point how few -- will ultimately make a difference and provide this committee the support it needs to make a final decision.

And will these citizens agree it's the right decision?