If you thought traffic has been bad this summer.....

Have you been reading about Cabelas?

The grand opening is expected to bring 1,000,000 shoppers to the Tualatin big box store over the 4 day event.

A MILLION?

Sure as shootin' it'll be a non-stop vehicular onslaught.  No wonder Tualatin is upset about traffic coming to Stafford - they already have a serious problem with the Tualatin Sherwood road, and it's going to be worse with this new magnet store they've built at the freeway on-ramp.

Even with the loss of traffic generated by the closure of the iconic Jiggles, this is going to increase traffic daily and dramatically impact weekends as hunters and gatherers converge there to shop and gawk, because this store ain't just another Dick's. They expect people to travel a few hundred miles and cross state lines to get there.

Prudent Hamleteers will stock their shelves with chili and pork rinds and not venture too far from home the weekend of the 18th.

Wiser ones will just up and leave town.

And perhaps some of us will be looking out their windows and wondering if this is a sign of our own future should the Hamlet get all urbany and densified.

What will Borland Road look like that weekend? Roundabout traffic? And I-205? Will traffic on Childs Road be able to turn left onto Stafford at all that weekend?

I sometimes roll my eyes when the NIMBY arguments come up because TRAFFIC panic is always high on the list, and it pushes the protest buttons.

This Cabela weekend may get us all reaching for the panic button!

Will we stay Urban Reserve - or?

Last night at a Special Board Meeting, surrounded by the amazing evening beauty at the Fiala Farm, it was agreed 7-1 that we will have a vote this fall about the designation we want for the non-Borland area of the Hamlet.

The roads to this decision came from different directions. Over the last year some 80+ people signed a petition asking for the chance to have a vote to inform the county on whether or not we want UGB inclusion. There were also multiple requests for this to the board over the last two years, none of which were entertained.

Then the county, after Washington County got their Grand Bargain at last year's legislature, decided they wanted the same opportunity to fast track some employment land into the UGB. To do that though there should be a consensus among the cities, the county and the affected lands as to what should be added, maybe removed, maybe altered in the current designations. So now the County is actually asking us - what do we want?

Then there was the legal response to the lawsuit that Tualatin and West Linn filed saying that the Hamlet shouldn't be included in any planning until the traffic mess out here is dealt with. This was upheld. Where it's going to next isn't clear, but for now, there's no touching this area.

Which means prime Employment Lands in Borland can't be developed.

Anyhow, I hope I got that all correct because it is a little complicated.

So, in response to the County asking us What We Want, it was decided to have a vote in September to make sure that the wishes of our citizens are represented correctly. We've had surveys and town halls that have approached that question, but never an actual conclusive vote. Of course it's an Advisory vote to inform the County, but it is still a great chance to voice what the majority of the landowners out here hope will happen.

There will be information coming out with pros and cons, FAQ's, maps and places for discussion. Don't forget our staffordhamlet.com website which will be the source for that, too. And of course there will be newsletters.

Would you like to help with the outreach?  Please contact Tracy Tolbert or Dave Adams if you'd like to help with signage, donate some $$, lick envelopes or write the materials. We could use a solid core of people to help create the message that will get people inspired to come vote!

Escape from Purgatory?

Hi,

I haven't written much lately. A couple of reasons. And no, spring fever isn't one of them!

Being careful of Apple Carts
If you come to meetings you know it's been a tough slog going forward this year on the vision plan. I was on the Structure Committee and now the Task Force committee - both of which are moving the Community Vision Plan forward using all of our good Consensus Building tools. The Structure group was 8 people and we did ok We were all happy with the result and felt good about each other when we were done. (Well, I liked everybody more when we were done than when we started anyhow!)  We talked through tough things, unveiled those pesky elephants charging around the room, asked and listened instead of getting hurt feelings or jumping to conclusions and produced our report On Time. Go Team!  The Task Force is tougher - there's 12 people on it and after a couple of meetings some folks are calling for it to be disbanded and shut down. Really? And that's with a full time mediator at the meetings. True!  But that's newbie thinking. To build consensus in the Hamlet, oldtimers know you have to be able to walk on the hot coals baby!  So, we'll see how that goes!

Moving Targets
Things are moving around so much it's been hard to know what to write. About the time I hit 'post' the situation may be completely different! One side wants this plan, one side wants that plan, and then there's someone who has a plan all their own.


But I'm hopeful that a plan can emerge that will benefit the most citizens the most ways. 

Isn't that what SHOULD come out of a community vision?

As I wrote last time, the court case win by West Linn and Tualatin has affected us by not making full development here a slam dunk.  The county is saying that there might be a slightly different pathway. We could maybe go back to our great Undesignated status and have it be possible for EFU lands to 'upzone' or create some smaller lots to build on or sell off.

There's lots of questions on that we're trying to pin down.

Only upzone for EFU?  What about larger RRFF5 landowners? Is there a chance for them too? Is this only if we keep Stafford north of the river Undesignated?  Upsides? Downsides? Hiddensides?

Remember we've had this conversation before? Before we were in the Urban Reserve ( a status where ALL of your re-zoning or subdividing rights are frozen until a city kindly annexes you), we were exploring this same option for some limited change, limited growth, and limited stress on our infrastructure that is possible in Undesignated areas.

Dan Chandler from the County has called our  current status -  Purgatory.  An endless unchanging night. Hmmmmm.

Note: images of purgatory were so disturbing I'm sharing this instead.

Please stay involved, tuned in and Active in the Hamlet - this is the time to keep up to date!

next: Who Are The 65%??

The ball never lies

Last night's meeting with the County reps was very interesting. Out of the Land Use chaos here may be a way to actually craft the vision of lower density that we want! ? 

What's your take on it?

Why we do it

Yesterday we had board elections at the Hamlet Townhall and I'm thrilled to have been elected to serve again.
Thrilled because I think the Conceptual plan can be an amazing product to work on for the community.
And most grateful for my friends that helped by voting and bringing friends to vote - and make it possible.

I made a new friend at the meeting. Her family just moved here this past summer. She lives up on Johnson Road and told a story about walking her 3 little kids to the road to wait for the bus and having one son turn around, looking at the fields and sky and house and saying, "Can you believe we LIVE here?"

As a kid that lived in the forest and only came home by family edict when it got dark, I get it. Probably everyone who chose to live here gets it.  When we talk about future generations here, he will be in my mind. You can shop anywhere. But playing with a turtle in your own backyard is special.

Enjoy the Holidays!

Carol

Myth #2 We'll be Eaten by Wolves!

I've been to a couple of meetings now where elected officials and some of my neighbors raise a frightening topic.

Development Pays For Itself is Myth #1 and I call this Myth #2

"If we get taken out of the Urban Reserve we'll be developed in no time. We'll have no say in our own future!

This strikes me as a bit of fear-mongering and not a lot of contemplative opinion.

If we get taken out of the Reserve, there will still be administrative hurdles to cross before we're plowed under. All sorts of MOU's and assumptions will need to be reviewed, revised and maybe lost or newly created if our status changes. We'll still be a Hamlet if that happens, just like we were before. What could be more perilous than being on the short list we are now?

Maybe if we're back to Undesignated we'd get serious about going to the legislature to ask about making it possible for EFU lands to add a second house in some instances, like the Measure 37 claims did. This is something several families I know would be interested in. There may be an upside to not being a reserve, frozen in zones until a city takes us over. Who knows?

We do know the cities still don't want to annex us and pay for our infrastructure.

Some folks in Borland talk about a big quarter million dollar survey Tualatin did in 2009 or so that outlined the pros and cons of annexing us, leaving us to think that because they did this they're hot to come get us. But actually, based on that survey and other realities they've changed course and are doing most of their growth in Washington County, with maybe a bit in Clackamas that's near Wilsonville, but not in the Hamlet.

Lake Oswego's citizens are not about to vote to annex us and pay one more expense on top of their current ones. And West Linn isn't interested either.

The ones that are saying this the loudest, including Clackamas County officials, seem to be the people that want to see us developed the most. So, does that mean it's easier for them to develop us if we're IN the Reserve? Or less expensive somehow? There must be some incentive.

And say West Linn brings in a bit of property along their borders. These folks already have said they want to come in and develop. Would that be terrible? Do we really think they'll come across Rosemont ala Braveheart and start developing us?

Like all things said with certainty (this being the exception of course!), look closely at what's said and who's saying it and what they'll gain by it. Ask questions.

And remember, when someone says Stafford is the Crown Jewel of Clackamas, they're usually only thinking it's the best place to develop, not the best place to live.  At least the ones I've heard say it - don't live here.

I'm Carol Yamada & I approve this message (!) Vote for me & vote often!  December 14th

Development Pays for Itself!

At last night's Hamlet meeting there was lengthy discussion by residents in the middle of the Board meeting on if Development Pays for Itself.

Duh! Of course it does! 
This was the viewpoint promoted in detail last night by lawyer Ed Trompke from Lake Oswego. And he's correct.
IF you are building this:

 Or this:

or this:

Yes, Industrial, Commercial and Farms are the three types of new construction that can either generate enough revenue or cost the cities so little that they're profitable.

But Residential is a loss leader. There are many studies online that support this which some of which I'll list below. They are mainly  looking at it from the viewpoint of a city, not that of the fractured neighborhoods, the happy developer or the carpenter who has a new temporary job. But when it comes time to develop we will be city-zens and affected by their viewpoints.

One paragraph:

This study concludes that population growth pays for its fiscal costs only in the most carefully controlled and unrealistically isolated scenarios.

In Florida they tried to pass a law that allowed residents to vote to allow or deny large developments in their cities. The ads on TV were extreme of course, and they showed how Growth and Development costs the taxpayers. Forida Politifact wrote:

Politifact Florida found through an investigative report that “generally, studies suggest that new large single family developments do not pay for themselves. But infill development (taking an empty lot in an urban area) or redevelopment is much more likely to pay for itself. So are commercial and industrial development projects.”  Research suggests that sprawling residential development costs taxpayers $1.40 to $1.50 for every $1.00 of revenue raised by the new tax base.  Sustainable growth including infill and redevelopment are more likely to reap a net positive for for the taxpayers because the infrastructure, roads and facilities are already provided to the area.

So when making the argument of whether on not Growth or Development pays for itself it's important to specify just what kind of development you're talking about. Small clustered housing developments in among the trails? Not likely.

When a Developer says that new projects pay for themselves, they are talking about paying SDCs (System Development Charges) and they are talking about today's limited construction zone reality. Maybe it will, but it won't pay for what changes need to happen a mile or three away or that there will be future costs not covered.

And of course added costs for current residents include the fact we'll be city-zens then and will pay city taxes.

But happily the Developer has a solution for that too - let's put in some industrial land and commercial towers to help pay the taxes for the services generated by the housing growth you didn't want in the first place!

The only study I saw that contradicts this is predictably from the Homebuilder's Association.Which brings me back around to Mr. Trompke. Who is he and why is this non-resident pontificating at our meetings and why is he co-writing the Stafford Plan?

WHO: He is an attorney and specializes in land-use law. So he knows more about all of this than any of us. He's also involved with the Homeowner's Association, Clackamas County Business Alliance and works with local Stafford developers. I'm pretty sure it's fair to say he has a bias towards helping those organizations and individuals to achieve their stated goals of bringing us into the UGB and proceeding with developing us.

There's one case written up in legaleeze  online where he is intimately involved in West Linn SDCs. In fact he's trying to get them lowered for his client. Fine, no one wants to pay something more than what they think is fair. But it's also a reminder that development will pay SDC's only if they can't get out of them. It's Business. They are not benevolent organizations that want to create a better world for your kids.

WHY is he writing our Stafford Plan?  I don't know that. Maybe because none of us stepped up to do it ourselves? 

So here are a few links. Any google search will bring you more here, in Canada, in Europe and everywhere.


http://betterchelmsford.com/inconvenient-truth.html
While the results might shock someone like Rick Santorum, who believes perpetual growth is somehow possible, they nonetheless serve to corroborate work done by Eban Fodor earlier in 2012 – namely, that the widely held notion that growth "pays for itself" is one of the most incorrect notions circulating in the popular consciousness.

See more at: http://reason.org/blog/show/does-growth-pay-for-itself#sthash.zDLn0Q50.dpuf

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/or-court-of-appeals/1079991.html


By the way, Shameless self promotion: I'm Carol Yamada and I'm running for Stafford Hamlet Board. I would really appreciate your vote!