Key land-use case unsettled

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

I would like merely to find out who is telling the truth here. 1. Can Dorothy English, or her hired contracto, now drive out to the site this morning and construct? If so, then Ted Wheeler the Multnomah County Commissioner is telling the truth when he says "She can build whenever she wants." And, the lawyer, Joe Willis is lying.

2. Conversely, if Joe Willis is telling the truth when he says "the county still proposes that English’s subdivision plan go through public hearings," then she or her contractor cannot now go and construct, and County Commissioner Ted Wheeler is lying. The key point is this: Can she or can she not go to the site and build today?

Please, reporters, find out and let us, your wondering readers know. There must be county records, tape recordings, etc. that will enable you to find the facts of the incompatible contending statements.

"Marvin McConoughey"

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 12:42 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Local government has the duty, responsibility and right to regulate growth. Development regulations address the long term good of the whole community. Unless the regulations have not been even-handedly applied, Mr. Hunnicutt misrepresents the issue and uses inflammatory language to evoke an emotional response rather than one based on understanding of the issues.

It sounds to me like Ms. English wants to have her cake and eat it too. She should not be paid if she is allowed to develop. Like greed driven corporations, Ms. English is concerned only with her bottom line, not with the long term quality of the community.

"Laura"

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 01:47 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Laura ...

I find your 'good for the community' thinking flawed. As people, we each have different values.

Perhaps, my thinking is: we have too many churches, which do not pay property taxes, so we cannot allow any new churches to be built. Are churches 'good for the community'?

OR ... we are adults and can pick the entertainment we want. Porno stores next to schools? After all, they pay taxes and taxes are 'good for the community'.

The whole argument is a no win deal to me ... but it is just my opinion, which might not be 'good for the community'.

"Cindy B."

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 02:38 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Laura,

The landuse laws we all suffer under were supposed to be followed by a system to compensate landowners when the value of their land was impacted for the "good of the whole community".

The folks who wrote SB 100 knew that there were going to be landowners negatively affected. SB 101 outlined a system to ascertain the impact and negotiate approriate compensation for the landowner.

The system was never implemented. Have you advocated for that system in the interest of the "good of the whole community"? Spent any time or effort trying to rectify that flaw in the landuse system for the "good of the whole community"?

Somehow, I doubt it. People who drivel on about the "good of the whole community", usually expect the productive nasty capitalists with real jobs to fund their version of the world.

Given the silly comment you make about 'greed-driven corporations' I would imagine you are simply another PDX watermelon.

Green on the outside, red on the inside.

"Chris"

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 04:12 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

This is rich. This woman was jerked around by Multnomah County from the start and she deserves every penny of the money she's asking for. And you have a bureaucrat like Wheeler defending their unfair and divisive actions. It really is sickening.

And Laura, just what "quality of the community" are you talking about? Just how would Ms English's development deteriorate the community?

You want talk about Metro's 2040 plan or the City of Portland's back room dealings to make the area more dense, more congested and less desirable? Our local government is responsible for degrading the quality of our community, not land owners like Dorothy English.

"Chris McMullen"

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 04:29 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

This is definitely an issue of fairness: Dorothy wants the government to pay her the difference between what the land is worth with and without the ability to build on it.

I will completely support Dorothy the moment that those land owners who *gain* through land use actions pay back the difference.

In other words, Measure 37 guarantees that land owners will always make money on their land (or the government will make up the difference).

How is this fair?

"Mykle"

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 07:24 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Mykle scribbles:

"In other words, Measure 37 guarantees that land owners will always make money on their land (or the government will make up the difference).

How is this fair?"

-------------------

M37 does not do what you say it does. ("guarantees ... always make money").

M37 compensates property owners when the Government takes from them (via regulations or laws), or gives the Government the option to remove those regulations/laws.

Mykle and Laura are ignorant, and know not what they are talking about.

"Barney"

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 08:00 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

I really hope this very selfish evil old lady goes to hell. Its because of her that Oregon is going to lose so much of its beauty and go to hell.

""

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 09:45 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

"" writes:

"I really hope this very selfish evil old lady goes to hell. Its because of her that Oregon is going to lose so much of its beauty and go to hell."

-------------------

Would you rather that everbody who has, gives up what they have to those who have not?

If so, you may try out Moscow, Russia (rather than Moscow, Oregon), as Putin is rapidly moving his country back to the days of Soviet Communism.

What is worse, the rantings of ignorants, or the rantings of communists?

"Barney"

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:07 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Barney writes: "If so, you may try out Moscow, Russia (rather than Moscow, Oregon), as Putin is rapidly moving his country back to the days of Soviet Communism.

What is worse, the rantings of ignorants, or the rantings of communists?"

Talking about ignorant! China is still a communist country yet they have very few regulations on their businesses which are sending us poisoned food, toys and tires that explode.

Government regulations to protect people and the environment, and Communism are two entirely different things Barney.

"Fred"

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:25 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

"The persnickety grandma" meaning fussy about details?

Sounds deragatory and unbalanced reporting from the get go.

I believe the reporter is biased against Dorothy and measure 37.

""

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

"causing local government officials to raise the specter of rampant unintended development as well as enrichment of private concerns from public coffers"

Gawd what drivel.

""

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:34 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

You want drivel? Listen to that corpulent Lars Larson or some other right wing property rights nutjob with the agenda to pave this beautiful state for the benefit of the few greedy fat cats he gets paid by.

"Fred"

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:57 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Ok then that was on topic Fred.

Do you think the reporter presented each side equally?

""

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Awwww...come on now Fred, Lars is a stand up guy!!

And besides, this state could use a little more pavement so the bykes can have their extra room on the road.

Now see what you did Fred, you went from "little ol' lady" to Lars bashing to the two wheeled anti oil burners.

"Pete"

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 12:01 PM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

So the Tribune provides a link to Oregonians in Action but not to the yes on 49 campaign www.yeson49.com

This article is biased all right, in favor of Robert Pamplin's political agenda.

"Liberal media...ha!"

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 12:52 PM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

"Awwww...come on now Fred, Lars is a stand up guy!!"

What a disgrace to the Scandinavian race. If he was in Norway or Sweden he would be crucified. That is if they could ever lift him up that high!

"Erik"

(email verified)

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 12:55 PM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

SB100 was supposed to save the vestiages of out "prime farmland which was less than 1 million acres. How then all the land in Oregon is zoned "High Vaule " farm or forest land? And with all this control how is it our actual prime land has dwindled to less than 600,000 acres with all this commumistic control? And why one farmer gets $300,000 per acre for his land for develpoment; whereas, his neighbor gets only $5,000 per acre for his property where the only difference is zoning.

Why are you so comcerned about the greed of the farmer; rather than the hurt of the family trying to buy a home? Due to a scarity of contirieved builabe land, lot prices in the past 2 years has escalated from $40,000 to $150,000. This has caused housing costs to dramatically incease by 29% per year. And it is why builders and businesses are relocating to Washington. And it is why Oregon property values will shift dramtically downward when all that remains in Oregon is the elists and the poor. Thanks to our welfare state and property tax structure,

Need one say more??

"George H. Forsman"

(email verified)

Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 01:09 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Fred,

You are part of Oregon's lying machine attempting to cast Dorothy and others building homes as an "agenda to pave this beautiful state for the benefit of the few greedy fat cats"

You couldn't be more dishonest and misrepresenting.

Having English build her houses and many others around the state is far preferable than the planner's sea of asphalt, concrete and roofs we see more of every day.

The worst development this state has seen has been a result of the planners ansd their so-called smart grwoth. So smart that is over populates and over crowds all of our cities while retarding land supplies, inflating homes prices, increasing affordable housing scarcity, clogging our roads and freeways and vanquishes our government services by diverting tax dollars to subsidize the "plans".

Had Dorothy English been free to build her houses 4 years ago, 10 years ago or 20 years ago our region would not had suffered at all. Let alone been paved over.

Instead we got and get more of the Beaverton Round, SoWa, costly and over crowded Transit Oriented Development and houses crammed in the yards of existing homes. Neighborhood after neighborhood is being disrupted and altered with too much while you and yours claim is this is a process of preservation.

The wholesale dishonesty that perpetuates it grows daily as the push for even more goes on.

I'm fed up. You are a fool and a liar.

Lost in the mindless theories of Metro and other planner's as they seek to Europeanize, social engineer and change Oregon entirely from the primarily small town, small state rural-suburb-urban wonder into their vision that arrives.

"Dan"

(email verified)

Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 02:43 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

I agree with Dan completely. I live in west washington county and we bought a home five years ago out here when they still built houses with enough room to push a lawn mower between the house next door. I have watched every tiny plot of ground with a group of trees in the middle of town get mowed down to plant 20 crappy townhomes. Half of those are low income or purchased by investors so they fill up with renters who trash the neighborhood. Even the townhomes are selling for 300K and they are the lower price range of the market. What young couple or family can afford that?

If you go further out to Forest Grove or Cornilius you get more affordable but trashy renters fill up the crummy little row houses that replaced the grove of trees in the middle of town that made it refreshing and rural.

I will sell my house in a couple years and make a pile of money and then move deeper into the beautiful Oregon rural.

"Pete"

(email verified)

Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 03:14 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

"If you go further out to Forest Grove or Cornilius you get more affordable but trashy renters fill up the crummy little row houses that replaced the grove of trees in the middle of town that made it refreshing and rural."

And do you want this trashy sprawl all the way to Eugene filling up the whole Willamette Valley, the best farmland in the US? That's what this greedy old lady has opened up with her M37. The paving of our state with endless trashy sprawl sprawl of tract housing and strip malls. Its only a matter of time now. Goodbye Oregon.

"Erik"

(email verified)

Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 03:51 AM

From Ashes to Ashes

Humans are so possessive. Must be our genes and knowledge that our life here on earth is very limited.

It is true that "Mother Nature" will do what it wants. We as humans can create havoc here on Earth. However, for every action there is reaction.

Moving from the spacial picture to our backyards, it seems that some of the "indicator" species like fish are caught up in the "reaction" state of Mother Nature and are disappearing. Something else will take its place, surely. Look at the evolution of plant species in our community and state--especially those we call invasive and those taking over the "native" landscape.

We are part of that invasive species and we will reap what we sow. I guess the real question is whether we are willing to except what we are reaping.

These are pretty slow processes (landscapes evolving). However, we are told that the evolution is accelerating to results we never expected to see in our lifetimes.

It seems one of the questions not addressed in this debate is what we as a society want to pass on to our great children (if we get to the stage before Mother Nature evolves out of existence).

As for corporations, they no longer answer to us. They only answer unto themselves. Is that acceptable? Hardly, because they are like an invasive species directing our survival. Will they direct life to a continuous level of sustainability as we know it? Probably not. HOwever, can they assure that humans might survival in spite of themselves? Maybe.

In the biological world diversity has been the only way toward survival, short of catastrophic events way beyond our control (like the disappearance of dinosaurs).

My selfish feet are firmly planted on the ground and I hope I can survive within our society. I also hope that my children will have a productive life. If that means thinking a little harder about what I do and my impacts on others, I am willing to do my part. However, I do resent others who boast and show off their consummables, like their big houses, big cars, newest gadgets, fancy vacations and the like. I can't help but want the same thing. However, right now, I am pretty happy because my grass is pretty green and I have some big trees on my little 5,000 sq. ft. lot. And I can still go to Costco to buy my $5/lb top round. Yeh, it probably comes from Harris Ranch in California who influences the way a high percentage of Calif. water resources are utililized. I am sure I'm being drugged. You see our family likes meat. Sorry. So yes we are part of the problem, but to a lessor degree than others (but others would also consider us pillaging the earth). I still like fish and hope that they will figure out a way to keep them flourishing.

Unless someone knows something I don't, we are all in this T-O-G-E-T-H-E-R. SAVE Oregon for at least one or two more generations. Whatever it takes. I don't relish the idea of having to move. I certainly wouldn't suscribe to the living conditions of chaos and persecution that is going on in another place of the world. Of course, silly me, we are living our persecution right here in the Portland area and we just don't know it. But, ahhh, what a great summer we've had compared to other areas of the country!!

"Pat Russell, Clackamas, Oregon"

(email verified)

Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 04:06 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

PAT RUSSELL:

We are part of that invasive species

JK:

Do you also think that the world would be better off if man did not exist? I know that is a popular view among some M49 supporters and M49 is a way to preserve the rest of Oregon for wild life. Saving wildlife is a worthy goal, but squeezing all of Oregon’s people into cities resembling New York is not.

Of course the M49 types never talk about the next step: closing all those wild areas off completely to keep the invasive species (us) confined to the cities. Just google for “wildlands project” to see what some environmental extremist (including some in Oregon) have in store for us.

PAT RUSSELL:

It seems one of the questions not addressed in this debate is what we as a society want to pass on to our great children (if we get to the stage before Mother Nature evolves out of existence).

JK:

What kind of society will M49 bring? It will bring more of the same problems we already have: a shortage of buildable land for family housing and more job losses as the land for jobs gets even worse.

PAT RUSSELL:

If that means thinking a little harder about what I do and my impacts on others, I am willing to do my part.

JK:

That, of course, is as tippy-toed way of saying that Pat wants to tell us all how to live, because Pat is just sure that Pat knows what is best for the rest of us.

PAT RUSSELL:

Unless someone knows something I don't, we are all in this T-O-G-E-T-H-E-R. SAVE Oregon for at least one or two more generations.

JK:

Guess that you didn’t notice that Oregon is over 95% vacant and around 50% of the land is owned by the government and will never be developed.

I guess that you didn’t notice that the US population has quit growing - our birth rate is at replacement level - there is no huge influx of people just waiting to get to Oregon, except for immigrants and transmigration.

Thanks

JK

"jim karlock"

(email verified)

Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 06:15 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Note: Jim K is a paid representative of the auto and big oil interests and who knows what else.

Jim, if there's no significant influx of people then why would there be a land shortage for houses as you claim?

The housing prices have also risen in Portland slower than most other cities in the US for the past 10 years so your reasoning makes no sense. Sprawl costs enormous amounts for the inew infrastructure which is passed on to us the tax payers. When there is so much infill potential on already developed land within Portland proper why should we pay for sprawl infrastructure? There is probably room within inner Portland for a million more people.

Your car centric agenda has been tried. Its called Detroit which understandably dislikes high density and mass transit. It is now one of the worst cities to live in the US. Their inner city is in complete shambels gbecause their tax base now all lives in the suburbs. Compare that to Vancouver BC, Manhattan or Londo which all have high inner city density and mass transit. Manhattan, the city that never sleeps, is one of the biggest tourist destinations in the world. Vancouver BC downtown and London downtowns are extremely vibrant and livable. Your model of endless sprawl , highways and low density just does not work as Detroit and Houston clearly show.

Take your autop propaganda somewhere else. Oregonians are too smart for that filth.

"Fred"

(email verified)

Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

FRED:

Note: Jim K is a paid representative of the auto and big oil interests and who knows what else.

JK:

Fred, that is lie and you know it.

Fred just intentionally lied - why would you believe anything else he said. Especially since he is hiding his full name.

FRED:

The housing prices have also risen in Portland slower than most other cities in the US for the past 10 years so your reasoning makes no sense.

JK:

Not true. Most cities, including some fast growing ones like Atlanta, have few M49 type controls and have housing prices much more affordable than ours. Heck a young couple can actually afford a house in Houston. All of those overpriced California cities have tight land use controls. It is basic economics: Restrict supply and the price goes up, even with only a moderate increase in demand.

FRED:

Sprawl costs enormous amounts for the inew infrastructure which is passed on to us the tax payers.

JK:

Care to prove that wild assertion?

If you are correct, why did it take $250 million in tax money (incl. interest) to make the Pearl happen and will end up taking over $500 million in tax money for those condo towers in the North Macadam district. Do the math: $500 million for 5000 “homes” is $100,000 in direct tax cash paid out for each “home”. That is 2/3 of the price of an average home in Houston. See: DebunkingPortland.com/Houston/Houston.htm And you used to be able to buy a home for close to that in Portland before the government created an artificial shortage of land. See DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCost.htm

FRED:

"jim karlock (who is not hiding his identity)"

(email verified)

Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

I don't have the time to read through all the comments and they are all starting to look much the same some points however.

1) It should not be enough that regulations/laws cost these landowners the use of their land, they should have to prove the ability to use this land in the ways they choose in the first place. Why should we the taxpayers give our hard earned money to people who have not the capital to build what they supposedly intended to build.

2)It is an issue of fairness because if she is given an exception she should receive no money. If she is given the money she should receive no exception. To do so would be the government paying her to build and profit.

3) We have been convinced into acting against our best interests in the past. For example Measure 42 which argued that our credit scores should not and do not have any bearing on our driving records. The study that the NO on 42 people put forth was a study that stated, "People who have bad credit are more likely to file a claim when their vehicle is damaged" What this means is that if someone with good credit, plenty of money in the bank gets a mirror broken off they will likely pay out of pocket rather than risk a rise in their insurance rates whereas someone not as well off will file a claim due to no such ability of paying out of pocket.

4)By supporting people who "stick it to the man" and walk away with a ton of cash we are forgetting they did not stick it to the man they stuck it to us. We are the taxpayers we are so quick to turn each side into a hero versus villain that we forget to look out for our own self interest.

5) Something included in Zoning laws is the fact that some areas are zoned in such a way as to protect the environment, for example wetlands are often zoned to protect them for if they were not developers would snatch it up cheap and build there. My own parents home was built in what used to be wetlands.

We need to stop being led by the nose by half truths and pretty little slogans that make us feel like David versus Goliath. We need to realize we are the Goliath. We are the government of the people by the people for the people. So let's get out there and act like it.

"Jack Faire"

(email verified)

Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 05:15 PM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Erik - Trashy Sprawl? Who do you think you are? Erik, do you alone have the ability to evaluate how residents live and spend their money? They live in communities governed by their electorate. Maybe you need to be exposed to what it's like to grow up and live a socio-economic challenged area that exists only due to those, like you, who push your values upon those you feel lead less than desirable lifestyles - you know those people who shop at Wal-Mart? Those who live in that so-called "trashy sprawl" are more than likely there due to limits placed upon them by people who don't approve of not just where they live, but who you and people like you think they are. Your lack of respect and understanding for your neighbors is disturbing and pathetic. Your comments reflect a lack of character that is alarming and disgusting.

"mark - proud Danish Viking"

(email verified)

Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 06:06 PM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

While I don't want to see a sea of rooftops from the Columbia River all the way down to Salem, I would like something to give to make it where a schmoe like me making 60K a year can afford a 3 Bed 2 Bath house on something just a tad bigger than a postage stamp.

"Squire"

(email verified)

Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 10:11 PM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

98% or Oregon is open space, simple math.

where is the sprawl problem.

see map at ( below) for the US

http://ti.org/burchfield.pdf

and

http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=198

"Sprawl is just someones low density neighborhood"

(email verified)

Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 02:25 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

I too am frustrated with the back room, Randy Leonard and developer in fill deal making that continues unabated (do story on that Portland Tribune!), however I am more frustrated that this evil woman continues her fight for money AND the right to develop. She is wasting my taxpayer money. A whole bunch of derogatory adjectives comes to mind when I think of her greed.

""

(email verified)

Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 03:12 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Sprawl not only drains the city's taxpayer base to maintain the inner city resulting in the typical shameful inner-city decay found in most American cities but it also raises YOUR taxes as discussed in this article using Sacramento as a typical example.

Stop sprawl, vote M49.

Study: Sprawl costs billions; Sacramento area pays high price

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2005/11/14/daily9.html

"Tom"

(email verified)

Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 03:57 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

TOM:

Sprawl not only drains the city's taxpayer base to maintain the inner city resulting in the typical shameful inner-city decay found in most American cities but it also raises YOUR taxes as discussed in this article using Sacramento as a typical example.

JK:

If density is so economical, how come Portland is shelling out over $100,000 per “housing unit” to support the condo farm in the North Macadam development? How come the third developer of “The Round” in Beaverton is in financial trouble?

Tom:

Study: Sprawl costs billions; Sacramento area pays high price

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2005/11/14/daily9.html

JK:

Pretty laughable, Tom. From your article:

“The additional costs amount to some $84 million a day nationwide, the authors concluded.”

Wow, $84 Million per day in a country of 300 million. Do the grade school math: $0.28 TWENTY EIGHT CENTS PER DAY per person. A very small price to pay to be away from the pollution, crime, corruption, congestion and lousy schools of the big cities.

TOM:

Stop sprawl, vote M49.

JK:

Vote NO on 49 to let people be free to live away from pollution, crime, corruption, congestion and lousy schools.

Thanks

JK

"jim karlock"

(email verified)

Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 06:43 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Jim, please re-read the article. This is an article from professional urban planners at Rutgers. Not some rantings of a paid regressive wingnut crackpot propagandist like you or your your website.

To quote:"Residents of the area centered on Sacramento will pay $57,093 per person by 2025 to cover the additional costs caused by sprawling development, second only to Las Vegas among U.S. economic centers that face the sprawl problem, a new book asserts."

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2005/11/14/daily9.html

You need to get better educated about urban planning. You really have no idea what youre talking about. I suggest for starters you read the fascinating "Geography of Nowhere which details the history and problems of modern American cities. He does a whole chapter on auto- centric Detroit which is now called a doughnut city because the middle is in such decay that it has been virtually abandoned.

"Tom"

(email verified)

Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 08:27 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

TOM Said:

Jim, please re-read the article. This is an article from professional urban planners at Rutgers.

JK Said:

I did read it. It is purely a scare people with big numbers piece. Do the math the scare disappears.

TOM Said:

Not some rantings of a paid regressive wingnut crackpot propagandist like you or your your website.

JK Said:

Thanks for the compliment - it is obvious that you cannot find any errors on my web site, so you decided to resort to ad hominem attacks.

TOM Said:

To quote:"Residents of the area centered on Sacramento will pay $57,093 per person by 2025 to cover the additional costs caused by sprawling development

JK Said:

Now do the grade school math. I’ll help you: $57,093 divided by 18 years = $3100 per year. Now, we should discount this by 50-90% because these sorts of one sided books always forget a lot of stuff on the other side.

But, suppose it really is $3100 per year. What does the sprawl dweller get for that $3100? I’ll just list a few obvious ones that planners seem incapable of understanding:

1) Better schools. Might even save $10,000 per year tuition to a private school.

2) Lower crime. Planners always forget that cul de sacs lower crime (because stranger stand out ant there is no ready escape route when the police show up on the sole entrance.)

3) A real front and back yard.

4) Lower taxes. Big cities have a huge propensity for money wasting projects. Just a few locally: $2 billion on MAX; ½ Billion on the Pearl when you count interest on the bonds, 1 Billion on North Macadam (with interest).

TOM Said:

You need to get better educated about urban planning.

JK Said:

I try and every time I look at planner’s claims, I find that it is not true. For instance:

Planners claim that high density reduces congestion. It doesn’t.

Planners claim that high density reduces commute times. It doesn’t.

Planners claim that high density reduces pollution. It doesn’t.

Planners claim that high density is cheaper. It isn’t.

Planners claim that mass transit saves energy. It doesn’t.

Planners claim that mass transit saves money. It doesn’t.

Planners claim that mass transit reduces pollution. It doesn’t.

Planners claim that automobiles are massive subsidized. They aren’t, transit is.

Planners claim that Europeans use mass transit for most trips - they don’t: transit usage is down over 20% and auto share of person-miles is 78%

Planners claim that an artificial shortage of land doesn’t make housing un- affordable. They are wrong.

See http://www.portlandfacts.com/Smart/SmartGrowthLies.html

TOM Said:

You really have no idea what youre talking about.

JK Said:

As far as I can see, most of the planning theology is based on pure fiction. Can you disprove any of the above planner’s fallacies?

TOM Said:

I suggest for starters you read the fascinating "Geography of Nowhere which details the history and problems of modern American cities.

JK Said:

If what he says is anything like I hear form local planners, maybe I should read it for a good laugh.

Thanks

JK

"jim karlock"

(email verified)

Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 11:40 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

I wish this discussion could continue without people throwing around the "communism" thing...completely irrelevant and out of context here. It's a great mistake and knee-jerk reaction to interpret planners' ideas and objectives as a projection of desires for an authoritarian state...

First, it's important to acknowledge that we all share some common values regarding our communities...we want low crime, good schools, clean air, clean water, no congestion, open spaces for our kids to play in, enough money, etc...

Jim, you make these claims:

Planners claim that high density reduces congestion. It doesn’t.

Planners claim that high density reduces commute times. It doesn’t.

Planners claim that high density reduces pollution. It doesn’t.

Planners claim that high density is cheaper. It isn’t.

Planners claim that mass transit saves energy. It doesn’t.

Planners claim that mass transit saves money. It doesn’t.

Planners claim that mass transit reduces pollution. It doesn’t.

Planners claim that automobiles are massive subsidized. They aren’t, transit is.

I assure you, most reasonable planners (if you even believe in such a thing), would never argue that density alone solves any of the problems planners supposedly think it will - Our metropolitan area, and others around the country, are still in the infant stages of experimenting with smart growth, new urbanism, and the like. Of course, new transit oriented developments like the Beaverton Round (which I agree is a piece of shit) currently have little impact on overall congestion, high-density housing affordability, and the pollution that comes along with the need to travel long distances in an automobile. The goal planners have in mind for such projects is that eventually there will be a critical mass of proximity where housing, employment centers, recreational areas, and services will be very concentrated and accessible without need for personal automobiles...obviously, working in the existing urban landscapes of the US make such a task extremely difficult. Density itself will clearly not reduce congestion, pollution, commute times, and housing prices if the developments are rare, upscale, miles away from where people work, and if the only feasible mode of transportation is your own car. As for your claim that the automobile is not subsidized...I don't know about the actual automobile and oil/petrochemical industries, but who do you think pays for our highways? Transit obviously must be subsidized as the existing urban/suburban landscape, for the most part, is absolutely unsuitable for transit to be economically self-sustaining. I could go on...but just one more thing, can you prove that low-density, lack of transit correspond to low pollution, congestion, and commute times? I challenge you to show me how any of this is true for Houston, Atlanta, Los Angeles, etc...the perceived connection between density and pollution is absurd...Think about it...what causes air pollution - automobiles, factories, power plants...

What consumes energy - Factories, electronic appliances, streetlights, and transportation. How much more wasteful is it to 100 people driving their own cars, than having 100 people riding a MAX train that would still only be filled to 1/3 capacity?

I also have a hard time believing that Oregon's land use regulations have had a demonstrable negative impact on housing prices. Seattle, the Bay Area, LA, Sacramento, etc...all boast substantially higher median and average real-estate prices, and none of those cities or the states they're in have regulations as strong and thorough as Oregon's. I suspect that affordability is moreso linked to simple supply and demand. Demand for the Portland area is lower than those other places. There is still ample land within the UGB.

Geez I'm rambling now...

"Fang"

(email verified)

Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Here's what I wrote on this matter back in February, when Dorothy first claimed she could develop to 1953 standards:

Well, little old lady and media star Dorothy English doesn't just want to put eight houses on her twenty acres on McNamee Road northwest of Portland. She wants to avoid all other common sense rules and regulations regarding the development of land.

So Dorothy, do you want to put in cesspools to dump sewage into the ground like they did back in 1953 when you bought the property? Do you want to use asbestors-filled building materials? There were plenty of those back in 1953 too.

Dorothy, by the way, is represented by one of the more shark-like of the land use attorneys in the Portland Metro Area, from the Schwabe gang. So I'll ask you Joe W., if Dorothy wants to use knob and tube wiring like they did in 1953 to electrify her house (and perhaps herself and her guests as well), do you think that's OK? If Dorothy wants to turn in a plat to the Multnomah County Surveyor on the back of a cocktail napkin, with a mete and bound measurement "from McNamee Road to the old outhouse out back," is that OK?

www.urbanplanningoverlord.blogspot.com

"Urban Planning Overlord"

(email verified)

Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 01:43 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

UPO - We know what your opinion is, but it's not your land, and the point of Measure 37 is to limit the input of others - non-owners - on the use of real property.

"mark"

(email verified)

Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 07:28 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Why do we all ignore the real issue, which is population growth and control. If we had less people we would not have this issue or many others that have become so pressing in the last 50 years. Wars for oil, no health care, over crowding in the State and Country, overcrowding in the schools and prisions. You can alleviate all these problems if you would just work on the root problem of too many people.

"Kate"

(email verified)

Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 08:31 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

mark, by that reasoning my neighbor should be able to have a rooster or pig ranch on his lot. Thanks to zoning laws that isnt going to happen. So no you cant do anything with your property! Taxes and regulations are part of living in a civilized society and country. Save Oregon! Vote M49.

""

(email verified)

Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 08:39 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

the whole point that the govt does not get and understand is that we knew what we were voting for when we passed measure 37.we want our dam property rights and for the greedy selfish,arrogant govt to but the hell out.the fools in govt think we are stupid,but sorry to tell them we have more brains and common sense than any of those selfish govt officials have or ever will.

"matthew vantress"

(email verified)

Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 08:51 PM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Matthew, the anti-sprawl UGB regulation law SB100 is anything but selfish. Republican Gov. Tom McCall enacted it to save the priceless farmlands and wildlife habitats of Oregon, to save OUR state of Oregon forus and future generations! Nothing selfish about that. In fact the he was so serious about it that they made the effected farmlands exempt from property taxes. Nothing selfish about that either. Save Oregon! Vote yes M49

""

(email verified)

Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 05:41 AM

Re: Key land-use case unsettled

Sheesh, holy cow, and all that. All together now, have all of you read Measure 49 in entirety, or the shortened version on the OIA website( ohh, nasty word)! If you own property , please read it, because it affects everyone, not only us in the rural area. There are also regulations for those within the UGB. i want to dispute the idea that no one can build on rural land. 2 or 3 times a year, a property changes hands, and an amazing transformation takes place. The existing older house disappears and Voila!, a gorgeous Mcmansion appears. Who says no one can afford land? Some can.

"Jean Wheatley"

(email verified)

Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 12:37 PM