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

Wed Aug 29 22:58:07 PDT 2007

On Aug 29, 2007, at 7:48 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

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

The list shows 875 claims in Washington County.  Of the ones that  
have been decided, it appears to be about 10% reject rate.

I believe that a significant number of those people who filed M37  
claims in Washington County will be allowed to build.  I do not  
necessarily believe that the county was interested in cutting the  
fine line between those that are "valid" and those that are not.  I  
expect that the political decision was made to approve most of the  
applications, rather than spend the time and money to adjudicate the  
issues on all cases.

The list shows 875 claims in Washington County.  Of the ones that  
have been decided, it appears to be about 10% reject rate.
>
> 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.

If ending the option of a particular development qualifies as "taking  
away wealth", does the granting of a new development option qualify  
as a "giving wealth"?  As a matter of principle may the government  
charge land owners for that "giving"?
>
> I don't believe in "situational ethics". If something's wrong, it's  
> wrong, regardless of the situation. That's why I supported M37.

Ron, when the United States proposed invading Iraq, you did not join  
me in opposing that illegal action because you felt that the  
government must know something that we didn't.  On occasion, you do  
accept situational ethics.  We all do.

>
> 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.

The cost of denying the 800+/- claims is about a $1million for every  
$1,000 that they average.
>
> If the costs are too high, then we'll know, sadly, that the much- 
> admired Oregon land use laws were seriously flawed.

The cost of Measure 37 is not limited to the cost of paying or  
allowing the current claims.  It goes beyond that, a serious cost may  
be the inability to do land use planning in the future.  We can  
always do infrastructure planning which the developers love, but we  
will not be able to direct growth by restriction, which will raise  
the cost of growth that the taxpayers have to pay.
>
> 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.

I am not wedded to land use planning by zoning, if you want to  
discuss alternative planning methods someday, we can talk.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet