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!