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!

Thoughts for the waning moon

Once upon a time a man who spent most of his life looking at the night sky decided he'd build something really special to honor his friend the moon.

His neighbors didn't want him too. After all, he was building on valuable farmland and what he was building didn't conform to their ideas of the local character. They liked things to be like barns and made of wood. This was going to be made of stone. They liked cows and fluffy sheep to be in the field, and this didn't plan for either. Also no one could figure out from the plans the style of it at all. Would it be rustic like their homes or whatever this was - post-modern-apocalyptic? The style didn't matter for, as Mrs. Saxon said, it was just plain Plain Ugly. The people complained and tore out their hair in protest.

The starry eyed man nodded and pretended to listen to the people, but secretly thought they were fools. He told them he'd make it smaller and they wouldn't even notice it. It would fit into their local landscape quite nicely.

And some of the people were foolish and trusted him and never asked for details.  They liked the pretty colors on his map, so they told him yes, he could build it. 

But then midway through constructions as the stones rose high into the sky from the fields, they had some doubts about his intentions.

What exactly is this strange building for? What kind of people would come? What would happen to traffic? Would there be enough water?  Is this what we want in the neighborhood?  They went to the Planning Board to try to stop it.

But the Planning Board just shook their heads and told them it was too late to protest. Details of the 'local character' weren't written in stone anywhere, and besides ground had been broken already. 

The day of the opening ceremony the farmers saw what was built.

It was huge. There were donkey jams everywhere as people drove from far and near to gawk at the new structure.  Strange people in white robes swarmed across the landscape. At least one member of the Walton clan was seen lurking around the edges.

To this day on the full moon in every pub in faraway England the controversy continues.  Was this the work of a Man of Vision or a monumental Planning Failure?


Moral:  Any strange thing can be built in a community with no clearly defined or enforceable character and/or a druidistical building code.



The Stafford Character is not yet defined and so can't be used as a guide or conversation for new construction. Should that be part of our current discussions?

With summer in full swing the Hamlet Planning event has taken a break until September. So, a rushed version of a plan did NOT go before the people for a vote by the end of June as the original timeline requested.

Yippee!!!

 

 After that moment of celebration though, it's time to get back to the real work at hand - defending the process. 

Here's some interesting reading. This first email excerpt is from someone who attended the Town Hall at Rolling Hills:

Et al... for the benefit of those that were not present at the planning meeting where we were able to "grill" Carlotta :) ... and I invite corrections to this comment by anyone... The question came up along the lines of "What will be the ultimate outcome / benefit of the Stafford Hamlet planning effort?" If done with enough detail and community buy-in a METRO ordinance will be passed that permanently establishes the agreed planning parameters (The Stafford Character) for future actions. That becomes our single objective (IMHO). It is an objective we can define and one we can all endorse. It was represented to those present as a way to lock in OUR vision of the future regardless of what jurisdiction(s) get involved, when/what UGB inclusion occurs, how infrastructure is provided, etc...

OK, so when I read this I thought - this is news! If we come up with a plan with amazing community support Metro WILL pass an ordinance codifying it. Not might pass or might consider, but flat out will pass it.   Such an option had never been presented before. It seemed a little too good to be true! Someone else thought so to and forwarded this whole email to Carlotta for confirmation. Her response?

In the first place, I can't promise that any ordinance would be passed. 
In the second place, the issue of an ordinance was posed as a question 
that Ed answered, not me. I solicited a staff response to the question 
of whether density transfers could be ensured by an ordinance if an area
 is annexed. I believe the staff response was that questions like that 
would be spelled out between the annexing community and the community 
being annexed. I am not at my computer so I don't have the actual staff 
response. I'm just going from memory. Thanks for sharing this with me. I
 have been reluctant to participate in the Hamlet conversations for 
exactly this reason. I attended what was billed as a town hall type 
presentation on what the neighborhoods were talking about. It turned out
 to be something different.  

Something different is right, if the 'grilling' comment is accurate.

This may or may not be a classic disingenuous type of misdirect. "Bobby came to play ball and the kitchen window got broke." Did Bobby break the window?  "Carlotta came to our meeting, the question came up and it turns out they'll pass an ordinance!" Did Carlotta say that?

No.

Who said that? 

Ed.

Who?

Herb Koss & the Johnson Road LLC's attorney said that.

Who??? 


OK, so to make my point absolutely clear - this is what a normal person looks like:

This is what a normal person looks like when they're operating off their own bias:

We are all both of these people. We need to be VERY careful what information goes into the Fact Bank we'll be using to create the Vision Map or whatever it is. Currently random groups are running off and interviewing Experts (elected officials and other resource people) to let them know what we're doing and then to ask them questions as input for our decision making. There is NO structure to this. No agreement of who speaks to whom or what we tell them or what kind of questions we ask. And from what I've seen when two or more attend these, not even an agreement on what was said.

Perhaps every 'Expert' transcript needs to go back to the 'Expert' for confirmation before we allow it to be considered fact - otherwise it could end up as

Garbage In Garbage Out