While I definitely don't approve of expanding the airport and the accompanying noise that will create, I don't see why the owners should be obligated to "save an open space" by effectively donating the land to the community (any more than they've already offered). If the City wants to make a park, buy it. If the neighborhood wants to make a park, buy it. If they want to turn it into an industrial zone, so be it (do you really see anyone walking or biking down Columbia Boulevard to spend any meaningful time in such a "lovely" open space anyway? Isn't that why the golf course is closing - not enough revenues from not enough golfers who don't like listening to the cargo trucks and airplanes?).

If they want to turn it into an industrial zone, so be it.

No, there are land use laws that require that the land be kept open space. The question is whether those laws should be changed. These folks say no, and I agree with them.

This space could easily be adapted to use by wildlife and as a park. The city should take some of the millions it hands to OHSU and Homer Williams and make that happen.

Don't know too much about golf courses, but I always thought Colwood was a public course, which is why the rates are pretty cheap...no?

Or does public not necessarily mean city owned?

not necessarily

Exactly right. Colwood is (or at least was) owned by National Golf Courses, a private company that owns and operates public courses for profit.

I've played Colwood but I'm willing to let it go for a bigger airport. More revenue for the Port is good and I like getting out of Portland when I can to sunnier environs. Alternatively, maybe the Air guard could be relocated freeing up their space. Either one works for me. As for open space: some 96.5% of Oregon geography is undeveloped open space, and Colwood would make little difference to this percentage.

some 96.5% of Oregon geography is undeveloped open space

This is right-wing airheadedness at its worst. I could care less about statewide percentages. In the Portland metro area, open space is at a premium.

Thank you for posting this Jack.

For the record, no one is denying the land owner's right to request an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This issue is as you stated "there are land use laws that require that the land be kept open space. The question is whether those laws should be changed."

The fact of the matter is that in reviewing the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comp Plan; the nature and location of this historic open space; and the existing constraints on the transportation, storm water, and wastewater systems in the area, this request should be denied.

Also no one is asking or expects the land owners to donate anything. If they want to sell under the existing zone - rather than an inflated price based on a rezoning - every resident, business, and organization supporting retaining the open space zoning is ready to ask for Metro and/or the City to step up and buy it.

Bob Clark obviously doesn't live along the flightpath.

Leaving the land as "open space" with no tax revenues when there are apparently willing buyers who want to develop it consistent with the rest of NE Columbia Boulevard doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Having said that and accepting that the City's decisions often don't make ANY sense, I have no issues with the City stepping up and buying it if the residents of the area think it would actually be beneficial. More beneficial than sidewalks and paved streets (this was the neighborhood Tom Potter was focusing on). Too bad the City doesn't have the money for either of these basic projects.

Mark,

A public course just means it is open for anyone to play, not a private club.

IIRC Colwood is owned by the same company that owns the Cedars up in Vancouver

Mike,

Thank you for your thoughts on this issue.

Public financing is a complicated mix of funds that can be used for anything and those that are targeted. Yes, it doesn't always make sense.

Funds available for purchasing Colwood include Metro's Natural Area Bond funds - which was approved by voters in 2006 - which has targeted areas in the slough for acquisition:

http://www.metro-region.org/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=24609

And the City's system development charges that must be used for parks:

http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?c=38516

Using either of these funding sources would not be taking away funding from Cully's much needed transportation infrastructure. And these funds can't be used for anything other than acquiring open space and the like.

The affected neighborhoods - Cully, Parkrose, and Concordia - all support retaining the open space zoning.

For instance, here is Cully's testimony to the hearing officer on this issue:

http://www.cullyneighbors.org/InnovEditor/assets/userfiles/colwood%20hearing%20testimony.pdf

And here is Concordia's testimony:

http://www.pocketbookvote.com/cna/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/colwood-rezoning-testimony.pdf

All the best,

Tony Fuentes