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

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

So, you think a significant number of those claims are valid and will be
approved? 

As I said days ago, it was a matter of principle to me. The government
cannot take away the wealth of citizens at random. The citizens of Oregon
said that the old system did just that. I agree. 

I don't believe in "situational ethics". If something's wrong, it's wrong,
regardless of the situation. That's why I supported M37. 

I'm probably not as pessimistic as you. I still want to get an idea of how
many claims are valid and, if valid claims would do serious injury to the
land use planning system, what it would cost us under the law to deny them
permission to build. 

If the costs are too high, then we'll know, sadly, that the much-admired
Oregon land use laws were seriously flawed.

In that event we'll need to do something new and different. As Albert
Einstein once observed, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of
thinking we used when we created them." In this case, I believe that trying
to roll the calendar back to the 1970's, or even back to 2003, is likely to
create even more serious problems.  

Ron D'Eau Claire 
 







-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:50 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Future of Downtown Forest Grove (WAS: Fwd: LandUse
Update August 16th)



On Aug 28, 2007, at 9:22 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> ...  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.
> ...
There is a listing of the Washington County Measure 37 claims at
http://washtech.co.washington.or.us/measure37/

Some intend to connect to city services, their claim says that.   
Other claims are going for high density with community water systems  
serving developments as dense as half acre lots.  Thats twice the  
size of a 10,000 square foot city lot, nothing more.  And these  
examples are surrounded by farm or forest land.  (some local examples  
listed below)

> 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.
>

Perhaps you might review a map of the claims to see how extensive the  
impact of M37 on Washington county land use planning actually is.

Map of Measure 37 claims in Washington County
http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/NRD/docs/pdf/m37/washington37.pdf

To see how the M37 claims impact farming operations you may look at a  
Map of Measure 37 claims on high value farm land in Washington County
http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/NRD/docs/pdf/m37/washington37prime.pdf

Examples of local claims with high density development surrounded by  
farm/forest land, on land that has been assessed for decades as farm/ 
forest lands.  They received the tax benefit of the farm zoning and  
now are approved to reap the benefit of residential density development.

Claim # 37CL0151, approved, Kohler Family Trust, 116.5 acres, M37  
claim to build 250 +/- units, and a community water system.  Banks  
school district, taxable assessed value $107, 680, located on farm/ 
forest land North of Banks.  possible tax deferral as well.

Claim #37CL0138, apporved, Hofer, Robert M & Rachelle Lyn, 78.69  
acres, M37 claim to divide property into 100 +/- lots and build  
dwelling on each and a community water system.  Banks school  
district, taxable assessed value $31,240, located on forest land  
North of Banks.  possible tax deferral as well.

Claim #37CL0182, approved, Jarrell, C Hoyt & Phyllis Ann, in two  
parcels (41.16 + 31.38 acres), taxable assessed value ($93,830 +  
$17,010), M37 claim to divide each parcel into (73 + 73) lots and  
construct a community water system.  Hillside North West of Forest  
Grove, farm land.

Claim #37CL0024, approved, Paul Thomas Unger, 19.53 acres, taxable  
assessed value $82,860 , M37 claim to divide into 20+/- lots, farm  
land South West of Forest Grove


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet