Kip O’Connor, a local developer, has filed a federal lawsuit that has Mountain
community leaders scrambling in response.

O’Connor’s suit enjoins Clackamas County, the Mt. Hood Corridor Community
Planning Organization and individual members of the CPO. The suit was filed
in October in U.S. District Court in Portland.

“I guess no good deed goes unpunished,” MHC-CPO Secretary Janine Bertram
told The Mountain Times. “This lawsuit has created a chilling effect on all
CPOs. It’s sad to do this to citizen volunteers.”

O’Connor maintains his action is not a strategic plan to quash public
participation (often referred to as a SLAPP suit) in land use issues.

At the heart of the suit is the minutes published by the CPO of meetings held
in January and April of 2010. These minutes included public comments that
recommended O’Connor’s land use application on Relton Road be denied, and
went on to recommend fines, license revocation and future permit denials.

Also, in attachment to the Jan. 2010 CPO meeting, the minutes read: “This
applicant has a history of serious and significant violations.” O’Connor believes
his constitutional rights have been violated by these comments.

“I have never had a violation,” O’Connor said. “I have had a number of
violations brought against me, but they have all been dismissed or I have
won. I have never lost a violation case in Clackamas County or any other
county.”

O’Connor went on to say this issue all started with his revetment on Relton
Road.

“The county accused me of not having proper permits, although I had permits
from state (Department of State Land) and the Army Corps of Engineers, and
I had filed for my county permits ... I have been targeted for every home I
have ever built on the river by the CPO ... It seems they are not acting as
responsible citizens but more like a modern day lynch mob.”

Despite O’Connor’s personal implication, MHC-CPO President Dave Fulton
denied any such attitude.

“It’s not personal,” Fulton said. “I don’t know the guy at all. I have no
grudge.”

O’Connor said he has asked the CPO to have the defamatory claims raised
against him removed from the minutes.

“He’s never asked,” Bertram said. “He never brought it up ... However, I can
honestly say that if any developer with or without a land use application came
to me saying they felt MHC-CPO had treated them unfairly and asked that our
CPO mitigate a recommendation, I would give them a full and fair hearing.”
“There’s something disingenuous about all this,” Bertram added. “I think he
just wants to do this. It’s sad.”

O’Connor pointed out that a CPO is supposed to review applications and
recommend approval, denial or no action, using applicable Zoning
Development Ordinances as their guideline.

“They are not supposed to recommend fines, contractor licenses revoked,
future permit denials and spread their ‘findings’ on the Internet – without
giving me a chance to defend myself. We have asked a number of times for
the CPO to remove their illegal findings off the Internet. I have asked my
lawyers to also ask to remove them, since May of 2010. They refused. That is
why this is a federal civil rights action. This was not our first option.”

Fulton defends the CPO, saying these items were recommended by citizens at
the meeting, not the board itself.

The fact that the lawsuit accuses MHC-CPO members as individuals forced
these members to retain counsel. Operating on a limited budget, these
members were able to obtain free counsel from Dan Rohlf, a professor at
Lewis & Clark Law School.

Although the CPO provides input to the county on land use issues, the county
declined to offer representation to the members because they are not agents
of the county.

Faced with the grim prospect of proceeding on their own, Bertram wants this
county position to be changed.

“I want CPOs to continue,” Bertram said. “It’s wrong that individuals are not
represented (by the county). We are now pushing to get that changed for all
CPOs.”

Fulton said his group has received support from eight CPOs in the area,
including an amicus brief filed by the Oak Grove CPO.

“It is difficult enough getting people to serve on local boards,” Fulton said.
“This suit is a bad thing.”

Clackamas County and the MHC-CPO have both filed motions to dismiss the
lawsuit.