Technically, West Linn's proposal is enacting a requirement of one of the Goals of the State Comprehensive Plan passed in the late 70's. All we need in enforcement. Same goes for WoWhat in Jack's next blog.

Well, we did have a comprehensive ground transportation study done before we approved SoWhat.

Not.

The city can tell a developer, "Sorry, you can’t do (the project) until the deficiency is fixed,” Firestone said. The city won't tell developers they must fix city deficiencies, just that they can’t develop until the city service is adequate, he said.

THat's like the tax man saying, "You don't have to pay your taxes. You just won't have a house to live in, a car to drive, or a bank account to access unless you pay your taxes." But it's up to you.

That's hysterical.

On a serious note, I get this ordinance. I think it's probably not a bad idea, except, what happens when the developer hasn't kicked in to the campaign funds of the incumbents (or worse, has kicked campaign funds to a challenger) and then goes for a project approval.

"I'm sorry John, it looks as though there isn't enough investment in infrastructure in your proposal, if you know what I mean. I don't see how we could possibly approve it."

Or

A proposal may have huge infrastructure ramifications, but, since, oh, I don't know, Homer Williams is the developer, it skates right on through. "Looks like about a $15MM budget to us here on the council. At least, that's what Matt Brown on our staff is telling us. No chance for an overrun, and we don't see any service-level issues here."

Nice. Don't think it'll happen? Just wait. Give local elected officials a subjective veto power and see what happens. What's that wind called?

At least it's on the books the right way. In Portland, some touchy-feely design board controlled by members of the architects club seems to be able to override everything. And there's no "infrastructure impact study" required. There ought to be. If it's rigged, at least it's out in the open that way. Who knows how the city decides what to allow now.

There was discussion recently noting that by state law, local governments powers have been reduced to short-lived moratoria, so that they can only delay development projects for several months.

Personally, I wish that West Linn and other cities could deny development permits based on infrastructure. However, isn't West Linnn just asking for lengthy court cases in which they will surely lose?

Would appreciate clarification on this.

We do see all the time how in land use hearings, hearings officers and city councils do consider infrastructure issues. (Like in the Cedar Mill Wal Mart case). However, as I understand it, if the developer or company desires to appeal, they will probably win, because of Oregon's anti-moratorium laws passed about 10 years ago. Wal Mart in that case simply decided not to appeal. Most people I talked to felt sure that on appeal, they would have won.