Great, now Oregon is going to suck just as much as all the other states. Here comes the sprawl!!! (well, more of it)
What a huge step backward....
"I don't suffer from insanity... I enjoy every single minute of it!"
like the article says, there is a difference in 'legal' and 'fair' (or 'right' I might add).
"Those who plan do better than those who do not plan, even though they rarely stick to their plan." - Winston Churchill
Wow! This is something I never thought I would see happen in Oregon. I grew up in the Portland metro area and now live in South Carolina (the shining example of poor land use laws). Even though the traffic was miserable in Portland during rush hours the trade-off for me at least was worth it. I liked being able to see farmland and protected greenspace surrounding the city. The people it seems have spoken...I hope they are happy with their decision 10-20 years from now.
We are back in the business of processing M37 claims. Yippee.
We have had a steady stream of claimants and prospective claimants into the office today. Good bye long range planning. Hello deed research.
Oregon cities need to keep their utilities within the city limits. It will make it much tougher for any landowner to subdivide. Also, counties have to step up to the plate and make sure any developer has to follow some very strict guidelines for development. If it isn't cost effective, it won't be developed.
Also, the Oregon DHS needs to tighten regulations on lot sizes for lots with no utilities.
C'mon and get me you twist of fate
I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
If you want to talk well then I'll relate
If you don't so what cause you don't scare me
How much is keeping utilities within city limits going to work? Where I work, in SW montana, our cities keep their utilities within their boundaries, but people just use well and septic (anything larger than 1 acre lots goes) or, if its a big development, they do a community well and septic. So much for annexation...Originally posted by Mastiff
And unfortunately, Oregon counties aren't necessarily stepping up to the plate on development. One example is in Washington County west of Portland, where the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge encompasses parts of the rapidly growing City of Sherwood. Washington County and Sherwood planning staff have greenlit development that is either within the Refuge's acquisition boundary for future habitat preserve or surrounds it. They did not consult anyone at US Fish & Wildlife, who have plans for building an interpretive center and other visitor service facilities for these properties. They didn't consult Metro, the regional Council of Governments who administers the Urban Growth Boundary and also owns property near the refuge and are working with my firm to model a future connector between two highways that run parallel in the area (I-5 & Hwy 99). Washington County is even one of the agency partners on the connector project contract. These approved developments have put an unforseen constraint on the connector project planning process, and have the Refuge management pretty ticked.
So now with Measure 37 upheld, what will happen? Nothing good...
Oregon has done such a great job of stopping urban sprawl and maintaining its open space and agriculture. Would be a huge bummer to have that change- as well as a scary precedent for the rest of the US if this doesn't get overturned. Here in Washington state they are getting ready to put a similar measure to the voters.
Looks like some people need to realize that the only way to control what happens on a property is to BUY IT. Quit expecting other people to bow and scrape and do your work for you.Originally posted by aargo23
RTG, had it up to here today
Buy it. Sure, we do it all the time. State agents in Salem do a pretty good job of helping high quality property acquisitions occur throughout the State of Oregon. But, let's be real; to begin with, Oregon doesn't adequately fund its schools (statistically speaking -- some great districts out there), or manage the state wisely enough for five to six distinct geographic and cultural regions to thrive economically, politically, and socially.
Somebody in this goddam place has got to start taking a few risks.
Zoning decreases property values and deserves compensation. Yea, tell that to real estate agents in Portland, Bend, Medford, Eugene, Washington County, Tillamook County, on and on.......I agree that Eastern Oregon and places like Josephine and Douglas Counties deserve breaks on 80 acre minimum lot sizes, and other complicated-as-hell lot of record/tract determinations, but where the people support strong growth management policies (like Multnomah, Washington, Lane (Euguene, really), and other counties), take on the major claimants, to the US Supreme Court, if you have to. Don't accept the appraisals. Take on the claimants with reports (verified by the 'burbia, of course ) and findings of fact that prove zoning laws do not decrease property values. Or, at least show ways that zoning laws can be changed to afford reasonable development with appropriate impact fees.
Portland, Valley, Southern Oregon, Central Oregon, Coast, and Eastern Oregon.
Portland voters don't want anything to do with M37.
Valley is a mix of heavy timber/ag interests, burgeoning wine, organics, and housing markets.
Southern Oregon, or the State of Jefferson, has earned the right to get some thing done...on their terms. Viva Ashland to Cave Junction.
Bend and the ranchers. Development and quality of life.
Coastal. Balance. Integrity.
Eastern Oregon. Values.
"The Big Look". Yea, I think we just got one. Now, somebody needs to hire me to draft the model ordinances and legislation that will respect and understand the places that favor M37-style growth, smart growth, and no growth policies and find a politician with some gumption to help lead the charge.
Or, I'll keep working on this CUP over here......
Do you think that the property values within the city will decrease with this proposal? It is a shame, but now we need to find other ways minimize sprawl.
This also has me thinking about the competition between communities. For example, is it right, fair, or just to limit development in one community, reducing the eligible tax base, only to increase the tax base in another community?
Not saying that sprawl is good, but what if all municipalities incorporated some sort of growth policy that would encourage development, primarily within their central core areas it would still create sprawl because of the enormous number of municipalities within a county or state. Larger municipalities have issues with annexing other communities, so the options are limited.
Regional cooperation would still have limited success because of the political environment that is attached to planning. Many elected political leaders would be less likely to do things that would reduce the available tax income within their municipality.
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense.
For those states that have a sales tax, restructuring the sales tax distribution would go along way in tiding the zoning for tax dollars mentality that many communities have. I don't think there is a simple soultion, but perhaps a formula that was based off of point of use instead of point of sale (some places do this now I believe)? UT has tried to reformulate sales tax distribution, but it goes no where. right now UT is based off of a 50% point of sale and 50% population formula, so not only do you have those communities that zone for dollars, you also have those communities that are perfectly content with being bedroom communities with no sales base and no local jobs, which is the huge catalyst for sprawl.Originally posted by michaelskis