This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 14, 2007 10:43 AM. The previous post in this blog was Street illegal. The next post in this blog is Weeded out. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Urban renewal, without the urb

The condos weren't enough. Now we'll take taxpayers' money and hand it over to developers so that they can pave over farmland.

I thought "urban renewal" was supposed to be about bringing dying sections of older cities back to life. But now it's about subsidizing sprawl into rural areas. Californication will gobble up every public nickel it can get, I guess.

Comments (15)

For another perspective, go to: http://www.ti.org/antiplanner/

top post: "planning and growth".

UR should have nothing to do with North Bethany development. Likewise tax abatement.

The real "blight" in this case are the Metro and Washco planners.

They also have a financing idea: Define the rolling farmland of the 800-acre soon-to-be urban area as "blighted" and create an urban renewal district to help pay for new infrastructure.

"dear citizens: your farmland is blighted."

Now they have about three months to refine both the concept and financing plans before sending them to the Washington County Board of Commissioners for approval.

"dear citizens: your famland is really, really blighted."

How can it be sprawl when it's inside the UGB?

Funny, I thought M37 was the evil that was going to allow development on farmland. Turns out Metro can do it too...who knew?

Jack, you probably also made the connection that the Betsy Johnson issue, about having surrounding property adjacent to country airports using taxpayer funds, is also another form of "urban renewal".

Public money is being used by TIF moneys being used to pay for improvements to the surrounding airport properties as well as airport improvements. This will be taking tax dollars away from schools, fire/police departments, roads, etc. as designated by the bill Johnson sponsored. This rural urban renewal might be more insidious than urban-urban renewal. We are certainly being attacked by the misuse of the intent of urban renewal as defined by state statutes.

Hmmmmmm.... so if Dorothy English can get her acreage designated as blighted, then she can redevelop it? Surely it's every bit as blighted as the North Bethany area... and it's also in the UGB, yes?

Ya gotta love the sweet irony - "Danger! M37 will demolish all farmland!" followed by "Your farmland is blighted - develop it!"

"Ya gotta love the sweet irony - "Danger! M37 will demolish all farmland!" followed by "Your farmland is blighted - develop it!"

Worse yet is the hypocricy. A M37 claimant simply wants to use their land and pay for it themselves. Subdivision or less.
Here is the government planning on spending over $300 million in tax dollars to help do the worst of any M37 claims.
High density vanquishing of farmland.

And not a peep from the anti-M37 pandamoniumists.

once again--the point of the UGB is to develop inside it. Understanding that first makes it much easier to figure out why there's no actual problem here.

This 800 acres of farmland was outside the UGB until it was targeted for expansion and heavily tax subsidized development. Understanding the hypocrisy involved here makes it much easier to figure out why there's a huge problem.
There is abundant land and development that growth demands which needs no massive Urban Renewal subsidy.
As demonstrated by the many M37 claims in Washington County.
It is absolute balderdash that this costly high density smart growth scheme is preferable to any equal M37 private development.
With real costs and debt service included this Urban Renewal scheme on farmland will result in at least a 1/2 BILLION in property taxes diverted away from basic services over decades.
And never has will there be more a debunking of the notion that "development would not happen without this UR" than with this scheme.
The powers that be have and continue to block development all around the county
while at the same time insisting this massive spending is necessary.

And even more hypocrisy as the clammor for System Development Charges to help pay for new schools which new development supposedly requires.
Sure, with goverment needlessly skimming half a billion, (along with countless other millions in other UR)from a schools and other basic services back filling the losses have to come from somewhere.

As I've said many times before, Metro is the real destroyer of habitats and green areas. Their density requirements have paved over more natural areas than any development outside the UGB.

The somewhat low density neighborhood I live in (houses with 8,000+ sq ft lots) is rife with coyotes, raccoons, red tail hawks and screech owls -- as well as about 30 different species of birds.

It's unbelievably hypocritical of M37 opponents to declare development outside the UGB will destroy habitat, and also be a proponent of the UGB and "density."

Torridjoe -

Of course there are problems here - You have public officials bastardizing the original intent of declaring something "blighted" in order to use a mechanism that ultimately removes tax dollars from the general fund, thus defunding essential services.

Do you really think North Bethany wouldn't be developed if it weren't for the urban renewal giveaway?

And we still have my original point - If development is the best use of North Bethany farmland, than why isn't it also the best use of Dorothy's property? (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that her property is within the UGB, not that I'm sure it really matters...) Why must she be forced to keep her property undeveloped, when 5 miles away from her, we'll be giving money away to have these 800 acres developed?

So I just looked it up, and her property is about a mile outside the UGB, for what it's worth. Doesn't change the hypocrisy of it all, however...

There is a lot of hypocrisy concerning Metro's UGB. It is okay to develop the Damascus area which will require a massive expenditure for urban services and the four land Sunrise Rd. It is okay to seriously consider Wanker Corners and Stafford that is far from the actual urban edge. It is okay to develop "Duberville" over several miles from even the actual edge of Wilsonville-and with urban renewal dollars to help it work (Wilsonville City Council just voted to extend an additional $35M of credit because they misjudged the costs of Duberville).

If government finds an expansion of urbanization is "justified", they seem to find a way. But Dorothy English who is even closer to urbanization than North Bethany, now that is wrong. Only government and the urban planners of Metro know what is appropriate for expansion. M37 claimants and all others are just dumb.

"the point of the UGB is to develop inside it"

You miss the point, the UGB gets stretched to fit developer's desires. So it looks like sprawl to me anyways.

Two posts from torridjoe, slow day at the CoP job?

Clicky Web Analytics