[Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th

[David Morelli]

Ron,

I think that I have understood your perspective since you made it  
before the M37 vote.

There is less than total acceptance of the land use process in  
Oregon.  There are flaws.  Those who have the legislative control  
over the land use process have ignored or denied the flaws.  Those  
who object to the flaws got a constitutional amendment passed to  
address the lack of payment for lost land use.  The judicial  
department overturned the constitutional amendment.  Those who have  
legislative control failed to head the "wake up call" and did nothing  
for four years.  Those who object to the flaws got a regulatory  
amendment passed.  Those who have legislative control are ignoring  
the flaws and trying to overturn the the regulatory amendment with a  
new measure.  You are concerned that a failure to address the issues  
of compensation for lost land use may result in a third measure that  
removes land use planning in Oregon.

You wish to see some compromise.

This process has been going on for three decades and you may have  
missed some of the compromises.

  Cities and districts must plan for infrastructure and service  
expansion to accept new development.  Cities and districts cannot  
refuse new developments.  Cities must increase density.  Cities must  
keep a rolling 10 year supply of build able land inventory.  Cities  
and districts must accept their assigned portion of the expected new  
populations.  Cities are restricted in the infrastructure expansion  
costs that they may recover from new development.  School districts  
are prohibited from recovering infrastructure expansion costs from  
new development.

The compromise was that cities could decide where the new development  
would be located, and they could decide target densities for  
different areas.

M37 says that the cities (or counties) that exercise their side of  
the compromise must pay for that exercise over and above the cost of  
planning and expanding infrastructure and services.

M37 says that taxpayers must pay for expanding public services to  
serve new development, or pay to stop the development.  M37 says that  
existing residents must suffer a reduction in public services, pay  
higher rates to maintain the same level of services, or pay to stop  
the development.

M37 says that the residents of the cities (or counties) must pay for  
that exercise over and above the cost of accepting higher densities,  
more pollution, school crowding, more traffic, higher crime, and  
higher taxes or reduced services that accompany increased development.

The money all flows one way under M37, and it is the same way that it  
flows today, to benefit developers.

As the city has grown dramatically in those three decades, Forest  
Grove has lost: all but two gas stations, all but one full service  
grocery, all specialty food stores, all clothing stores, all catalog  
outlets, all but one hardware store, the full services at our local  
hospital, hours of service at the library, hours of service at the  
pool, and our local employment opportunities have fallen from a rough  
balance of jobs to workers, to a requirement that half of the work  
force leave town to find work.

David