[Grovenet] Future of Downtown Forest Grove (WAS: Fwd: LandUse Update August 16th)

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

David wrote:

...People either chose to  
subdivide their property when that option was available or they chose  
to not subdivide their property when it was available.  That was a  
decision that they made.  It is not random.  People who purchased  
their property later, did not have that option.  If anyone lost the  
option it wasn't the people who chose not to exercise the option.

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

When people bought their property there was no timetable during which they
had to declare what and when they would build. The land use laws added that
restriction. Those who were somewhere between purchase and a decision about
what to build and when were caught. They were told they had to decide now
what they might want to do years from now: an impossible decision without a
reliable crystal ball. It was a random penalizing of people based on when
the current laws were enacted. 

David wrote:

Nothing to do with M37?  Huh?  Land use planning seeks to minimize  
land use conflicts by separating uses.  Wise or not wise, that is one  
of the goals of zoning.  M37 seeks to remove the land use planning  
and allow land owners to develop the land without regard to the  
impact of the conflict on existing neighboring uses....

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

Before M37 there were still subdivisions of homes up against agricultural
land. M37 doesn't create that problem. Look at the newer tracts of homes on
the north side of Forest Grove near Hwy 47 or out by Thatcher road! Yes,
there *may* be a few isolated tracts of homes separated from the rest of the
town if some landowners choose to create a subdivision and if the county
agrees to allow it. The same rules apply that have always applied. M37 does
nothing to make it easier for those landowners to build homes in significant
densities. Lots sizes in the country must be larger than in town to provide
essential land for septic systems and water wells. That doesn't change, nor
is there any obligation on the part of cities and counties to spend money on
providing water and sewer services for outlying areas.

Land use planning has always sought to separate land uses. It's why one
finds apartments around industrial/business districts in towns with the
single-family detached homes further away, for example, but separations that
please everyone are seldom practical. That issue goes back to a time long
before the current land use laws or M37. 

I see M37 as something that strengthens land use laws by removing
inappropriate, onerous penalties on citizens. Who decided the so-called
penalties are inappropriate and onerous? The citizens of Oregon of course in
the elections in 2000 and 2004 when they approved M7 then M37. That's a
warning that, if the citizens of Oregon are ignored they may well throw out
the current land use laws and the philosophy behind them. I don't want to
see that happen. 

Ron D'Eau Claire