Let's remember, it's all about property tax revenue to the local deciders. The more value you can add to a piece of land the more tax revenue it generates.

I have always loved how zoning is sold to the public as a necessary part of living in modern cities. I also love how the planners can just change it at will.

What a scam!

Planners are a combination of architects that can't draw, engineers that don't know math, and economists who can't balance their own check books.

Don't worry, unless with SDC's priced more than land I doubt the lower-end construction they desire will occur.

Mo' houses, mo' taxes.

You anti-density and anti-zoning types can always move to Camas.

Citizens of West Linn: Start making information requests for consultant reports funded thru planning. Read them close, especially the ones that cover the economic(taxes) benefits to be gained by increasing infill. That will tell you alot about what is really going on. And beware the good citizens (yes folks) who join committee's recommending these changes and who are easily contolled by the planning trolls

Allan L, you can always move to a condo near the MAX with no parking. Do you live in a place like that? Or do you live in a single-family home on it's own lot?

Progressive Portland loves density and transit. For other people.

I strongly recommend that West Linn Planning notify in writing every household in West Linn of their efforts. Only about 23 people in West Linn read DJC and the O won't report anything until after the fact.

The "citizen input" will be mostly from the handpicked committee representing the Planning Bureau's perspective-densify! In many cases flag lots and skinny houses decrease the value of a whole neighborhood. And decreasing yard setbacks from 10 ft to 5 ft does little for increasing number of houses but lowers property values.

Good luck West Linn.

Thank you, Snards. I've chosen how and where I want to live, and it's a practice I recommend enthusiastically.

Scam it is.
Please don't wreck nice places that are left. It is a relief to see some neighborhoods still in tact.

The city of Portland did not care about the character of the neighborhood when they wrecked ones here, even though the code said the project should adhere to the character.

Extra tax revenue is wanted and they get it by rezoning, and allowing adjustments then to the code.

Flag lots are a negative addition to a neighborhood. Do not let them start putting them in your neighborhood to set precedent.

Adjacent property owners lose - property value, the privacy of their back yard and sun for garden space or for solar applications. Homes on a standard neighborhood street offer the front view of the house, landscape and plants for the street view. Flag lots only offer to the street view one very long corridor of asphalt (flag pole) going to the backyard behind the original house and in that backyard (flag)is where they built a two story house then that sticks up like a sore thumb.

Then it isn’t only one house, but as many as they can squeeze in. I know of a neighborhood where the code would allow one house in the back yard of another, the project proposed wanted to allow two instead. The lots were required to be 5000 sq. ft. both were only around 4200 sq ft. The neighborhood wanted the city to adhere to the code. Neighbors wrote letters and testified to the hearings officer to not allow this, but to no avail. The property owner from California prevailed and got the two houses behind the original house on the lot. The neighborhood was told that the code of adhering to neighborhood character was now not what it was, but what the city envisioned the character to be.

These “smart growth” planners, urban planners are taught that this is the way to live now. Either that or they have to do what the city wants them to do. That needs to be challenged. We need the open space for growing food if nothing else. In my opinion, we should not allow this experiment to continue in our area. We need to open up to a new conversation as I have mentioned here before.
Sprawl to extreme = negative horizontal
Density to extreme = negative vertical

People in neighborhoods have told me that the planners told them that the density would only be on the corridors. Not so. Eventually, there were proposals to bring huge complexes with three stories right into a single family residential area. The factor stopping that was the economy. Codes apparently have meant very little, constant adjustments have been made. When that wasn't "enough" then more "code language improvements" were done by the city.

Stand up for your livability and property values, West Linn people.

Allan, I'll take that as an indication that I was exactly right.

West Linn folks may disagree but that "town" has always struck me as a westside Happy Valley/Damascus . . . strung out between Oregon City and Lake Oswego, built - in some cases - on the hills and flats along 205. I don't see the attraction myself. Is there even an old downtown area?

That said, I don't think any city deserves ugly infill which won't necessarily provide more tax revenues if the developers and condo purchasers get the same sweet tax offset deal many in the Pearl and elsewhere did.

In Portland I'm pretty sure the pre-permitted skinny houses on the skinny lots are costing the homeowners less in fees and taxes, not more.

But without some ugly infill how will West Linn ever experience the Diversity we others enjoy. Even their kidnappers come from out-of-town. That isn't Green.

Aaron:In Portland I'm pretty sure the pre-permitted skinny houses on the skinny lots are costing the homeowners less in fees and taxes, not more.

Which homeowners, the ones who purchase the skinny lots?
More and more infill eventually leads to more services required, public safety, more schools, etc. so then more taxes from all are needed.

Yes, the sky must be falling.

The City is talking about loosening the zoning code so people have the freedom to build and buy in denser areas. Nothing here indicates it's a density mandate. Nothing here indicates they're forcing people to live in West Linn.

But the hyperbole sure does get the commenters all worked up.

Snards: Progressive Portland loves density and transit. For other people.

So you want everyone else to live in whatever living situation you've chosen for yourself? And what does this have to do with Progressive Portland?

Clinaman: More and more infill eventually leads to more services required, public safety, more schools, etc. so then more taxes from all are needed.

It's much cheaper and more efficient to provide the services you mentioned to a denser grouping of people than the same number of people sprawled out at greater distances.

I am w/Joey , the planet is frying so that a few old white folk can live in oldtimey turn of the 19th cent. gabled homes. We need to get our heads into the 21st century , and design smart homes in compact urban configurations.

Allan, I'll take that as an indication that I was exactly right.

That'd be your second unforced error.

Joey: "So you want everyone else to live in whatever living situation you've chosen for yourself?"

Absolutely not. But neither do I want a bunch of government bureaucrats deciding how to ration out future types of housing based on what some planning textbook told them was best.

billb: "I am w/Joey , the planet is frying so that a few old white folk can live in oldtimey turn of the 19th cent. gabled homes."

Actually almost everyone wants to live detached family homes with yards. This is the overwhelming housing choice in America (and Portland) for those who can afford it. But the city planners want to make sure that future Portlanders don't have that choice.

Allan, you are a hypocrite. You live in a detached single family house. Now that you've established your piece of the pie, you want other, lesser people to live in dense housing. You know what's good for everyone else, but it's just "not the right choice" for you. Pretty typical liberal mindset really.

Ad hominums, ageism and racial slurs to the rescue!

Pick your poison.

Allan L. does not work, and has never worked, for government. And as I recall, he doesn't live in a single-family detached home, either. Can we lay off the personal attacks and play nice? It's for the children.

I consider myself somewhat detached, though.

Joey and billb,
What are you two - the urban planners who think you know what is best for people?

You may be the ones who are behind the times here, The New York Times has an article where they found out in 2005 already that the density plans changing the characteristics of neighborhoods were causing people to act against those plans in order to save their neighborhoods. I believe that there is value yet to established neighborhoods. This article talks about "the downzoning uprising" which is what may need to be the next movement here - five years behind the NY scene!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/nyregion/10density.html

t's much cheaper and more efficient to provide the services you mentioned to a denser grouping of people than the same number of people sprawled out at greater distances.

Posted by Joey

Tell ya what, Joey: for every driveway built to accommodate a "skinny" house or every parking space built to accommodate more condos or apartments, an incremental expansion of roadway must be added.

SW Vermont St. was a nice place to live, a couple of decades ago. Today, the place could provide audio substitution for the Indy 500, thanks to infill.

It's much cheaper and more efficient to provide the services you mentioned to a denser grouping of people than the same number of people sprawled out at greater distances.

Actually Portland's experience was the exact opposite. In addition to an over-capacity road network, the city has many times had to tear up underground sewage and utility lines to upgrade capacity at very high cost to accommodate the influx of new residents into infill and high-density developments recently built in what used to be quiet, sleepy neighborhoods of single-family homes.

Allen L: You anti-density and anti-zoning types can always move to Camas.

That's why Camas has a Planning Department and even a nice Zoning Map located on their website.

Most cities plan and zone their land. Some do it more tightly than others. But when Portland claims that it's so wonderful at planning, it only makes the (hundreds of) planning errors so much more disgusting to those negatively impacted by it - only to have the city steamroll any opposition so as to cover up the mistakes rather than understand them. Portland isn't any better planned than other cities - Portland has urban sprawl within city limits, Portland has industrial islands surrounded by residential neighborhoods; residential and industrial neighborhoods that abut each other with no buffer zone, incompatible residential densities overlaying each other...the list goes on and on.

Clinamen - are you really trying to compare New York City and West Linn, OR?

It's also nice to know that you consider the New York Times an authoritative sources.

Snards - Actually almost everyone wants to live detached family homes with yards. This is the overwhelming housing choice in America (and Portland) for those who can afford it. But the city planners want to make sure that future Portlanders don't have that choice.

And that's why the vast, vast majority of housing options in Portland and our country is single-family homes. You pretending that you're somehow being victimized or discriminated against is ridiculous.

Ryan and Max - the list of services Clinamen referenced ("public safety, schools, etc.") benefit from density compared to sprawl. Of course, if other infrastructure isn't built to sustain higher populations at greater densities, density can be more costly. But you've provided no evidence to support that, and there's no indication that's the case in the article Jack linked to.

Max - many people who chose to live in urban infill projects appreciate the proximity to transit, and actually rely on autos less than their suburban counterparts.

It comes down to common sense and choice. Increasing density for its own sake is stupid, but it can oftentimes be the smartest way to accommodate the demands of new growth. If the infrastructure and surrounding environment can support density, and people are willing to buy in to increased density, it would be stupid not to allow people to make that choice.

As someone who has lived over half their life in West Linn, this is much ado about nothing.

There are LOTS of towns and cities around the U.S. that have stopped growing. Perhaps those who want us to stop growing should go visit some of these places and see how wonderful they are.

Joey, consider reading "Population Growth, Density and the Costs of Providing Public Services" by Duke University's Helen Ladd. Unlike the more popular "Cost's of Sprawl" paper, this one actually uses real data rather than hypothetical numbers and calculations and comes to the opposite conclusions very decisively.

It's a popular assumption that higher population density translates into reduced costs of urban services, probably because it "just makes sense". But the real world is a lot more complicated and both historical data and present-day experiences show that there is little, if any evidence that your presumptions are true.

Ryan - I'm familiar with the paper, but it addresses an argument that I don't believe is being made here.

Providing the same level of services for a growing population costs additional money. Period. However, in most cases, channeling that growth into density costs less than channeling that growth into sprawl. I don't believe that the article you cite disputes that.

Max - many people who chose to live in urban infill projects appreciate the proximity to transit, and actually rely on autos less than their suburban counterparts.

Many - such an amorphous term.

Nice theory though, however undocumented.

I'll file it with the others.

Joey, your interpretation of what Ladd's article states is contrived. In "Sociation Today" in a review by George Conklin of the article, he summaries the article well:

"At very low density levels, increased density lowers cost of providing services such as police protection. But beyond very low levels of density, as density goes up so do costs to government. Rapid population growth also imposes costs on the local population through lower services levels."

Essentially we have the famous "hockey stick" phenomenon again where the costs first go down a bit, then it goes dramatically up, as Conklin's graph shows.

Certainly Portland has experienced the "lower services levels" when you have a leaf tax when before the city provided the service. And there have been over an additional 100 fees imposed in the last decade for services we once received from paying our property taxes.

When government proposes the allowance of flag lots, that essentially can mean up to doubling the density of a zoning type. A R10 lot with 10,000 sq. ft can then have two homes, doubling the density.

In Portland they allow even R5 lots to double down to 2500 sq. ft essentially with flag lots or granny homes in back.

Then there is the new Portland allowance of two homes on corner lots. In one 200 ft. block that had 8 R5 lots, that becomes 12 homes-a 50% increase in density.

When you couple these kinds of "modest increases" as many Planners use to sell these ideas, with decreased yard setbacks, then physically the density is even compounded more than just the 50% to 100% of above scenarios.

It is these kinds of mislabeled "modest increases" that makes government costs (which is taxpayer dollars) exceed the benefits. Portland proves it. We were told by Pols and Planners 30-25 years ago that increased density would lower our public service costs, but they have far exceeded even inflation.