Concerns from Canyon County Citizens - Reflection from Campaign Banquet

I spent some time going through the responses from my campaign kickoff event. I didn’t rush it, I wanted to take some time to process what people wrote. These are real concerns from people who live and work here.  It didn’t take long to recognize some recurring themes.

One of the areas of concern that kept reappearing was growth in Canyon County. But it was not just about growth, it’s about how it’s happening, and whether anyone is really in control of it.  One of the many growth-related concerns was about transportation. People aren’t just asking for wider roads, they’re asking for more options. They want safer ways to move between communities like bike lanes and buses.  They want connections between cities that don’t rely on getting in a car every time. That’s a more common conversation in Canyon County than it used to be. It suggests people are thinking longer term, not just about today’s commute, but what daily life will look like five or ten years from now.

At the same time, traffic is a problem right now with congestion and poorly planned intersections, streets without clear signage, and areas that aren’t well lit. These are basic issues but also very fixable. When people bring these up, it usually means they feel like the fundamentals of infrastructure aren’t being addressed.

Then there’s development.  This one came up a lot on paper and in a several conversations I had during the banquet. It’s also one I hear about on a daily basis both in my work and when I meet people as I’m out campaigning. 

Here are just a few common phrases that I hear: 

“Too many home developments.”

“Development moratorium.” (from supporters and those in opposition to moratoriums)

“Agricultural land preservation.”

“Save the farmland.”

“Infrastructure can’t keep up.”

“No Sprawl!”

Those are not subtle comments made on paper. People are worried Canyon County is growing too fast and losing something important along the way.  Canyon County has always had a strong agricultural base.  It’s not just our economy, it’s our culture.  When farmland disappears, it’s not just the landscape that is changing, it’s identity changing, and not in a way that people are comfortable with.

At the same time, growth isn’t optional. People are coming in record numbers. Families, businesses, entrepreneurs, and retirees all want to be here for good reasons.  The real question isn’t if growth will happen or how to stop it.  It’s whether we guide it or get run over by it.  Based on the conversations I have had with others, I think most people are just asking for balance. Not a full stop, “nuclear,” moratorium option, but they don’t want a free-for-all either where growth is allowed to just follow the path of least resistance.

Tourism also came up in these concerns, and that too is interesting. There’s a lot of desire for more attractions and more reasons for people to come here, stay awhile, spend some money at our local businesses and then go home. But people aren’t looking for just any kind of development, they care about the kind of development.  There’s a difference between building something that fits the character of the area versus building something that replaces it.

Environmental concerns showed up in the responses, not just general worries, but specific ones.

“Industrial development is heavily concentrated in 2C.”

“Environmental impact of traffic and population growth.”

That’s not a topic of discussion we heard a lot around here a just a few years ago. Now it’s showing up frequently in local conversations. People are noticing where things are being built and who is affected by it. That doesn’t mean everyone agrees on solutions. It means people are paying attention, and once people start paying attention, ignoring the issue isn’t an option anymore.

Parks and open space came up as well. Not in a vague way, but tied to rivers, trails, and public access. People want places to go, places to bring their families, places that don’t feel crowded or overbuilt. That connects back to growth again. As more people move in, the pressure on public spaces increases. If we don’t stay ahead of that, quality of life starts to slip in ways that are both difficult and expensive to reverse.

One particular comment stood out to me because it was so specific and direct: “remove flock cameras!” This is a very hot topic that does not have a simple answer.  Whether you agree with the concern or not, it points to something deeper.  Flock cameras have significant advantages with helping law enforcement solve crimes faster, track stolen vehicles, they can be a deterrent in high crime areas, and provide real-time alerts about major community issues.  Flip the coin and now we’re talking about a lack of privacy, how the data is stored, the potential for misuse, and government overreach. The county and the cities need to work together to address questions regarding the benefits and the concerns of flock cameras.

There were also comments that didn’t fit neatly into a policy category.

“Move away from being a close-minded community.”

“Figure out what we can do together to build a community that represents values.”

Those concerns matter just as much as fixing roads or zoning. Canyon County is changing as new residents are moving in. Different perspectives are showing up more often and that can often create tension. I try to remind myself that it can also create opportunity, but it all depends on how we handle it.

When I step back and look at all of this together, a few things become clear.  People want some types of growth, but they want it to be managed. They want to protect what makes Canyon County unique, especially when it comes to agriculture and open space. They want better infrastructure.  Not just bigger, but smarter, safer and efficient. They want transparency about decisions, and they want good public process, especially when it comes to technology and development.  And they want to preserve a sense of community that doesn’t feel like it’s slipping away.

None of that is unreasonable. But it requires leadership that’s willing to make decisions with long-term consequences in mind. It requires leadership that is willing to communicate with others in leadership positions, especially when they disagree.  They must be driven to find a way forward.  Not everything can be solved at once.  Some of these issues will take years or more to find a middle ground.  That doesn’t mean we can wait to start.  It means we must prioritize and the sooner we get started, the better. We need to set a direction, establish a unified vision and we need to make steady progress, no matter how slow it may be.

As I think about winning this election, I keep coming back to one question: What kind of county do we want to be, ten years from now?  Because whether we answer that question or not, we’re heading into the future. Growth, business, and development will keep happening. The only real choice is whether we shape it or it shapes us. I think people at the campaign kick-off were pretty clear. They don’t want to just react to it anymore and they want a plan. They want some confidence that the future of Canyon County isn’t being decided by default. That is where the county, cities, developers, farmers, business leaders and our residents need to have a seat at the same table to discuss all of these plans and decide what the future looks like for Canyon County. I believe that as a Commissioner, I can be in the best possible position to gather people in the same room and get these critical conversations started.