Tax spat in the 'Couv
Looks like some folks up north want to take on their port authority at the polls over a pending property tax increase. The O story is here. Most interesting to me is that "[t]here are 124,847 registered voters in the [Port of Vancouver] district, which roughly follows the Vancouver urban growth boundary."
They have an urban growth boundary? Really? Could have fooled me. Where is it -- the summit of Mount Adams to Long Beach, Portland to Centralia?
| Posted at 1:17 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (10)
UGB in Vancouver? Wow, I've done a lot of light plane flying all over Clark county and the McMansions run from Vancouver to Woodland. Scads of them.
Posted by Dave Lister | May 8, 2007 2:14 PM
Light plane flying? How unsustainable.
Posted by Jack Bog | May 8, 2007 2:17 PM
Now now, Vancouver has a reasonably sized UGB as I believe all cities in Washington are required. But as soon as you hit the northern edge along I-5 you enter the Ridgefield UGB, at the northern edge of that you reach the La Center UGB, and then there's a bit of a gap before the Woodland UGB. Going south from the Battle Ground UGB there's a gap of a couple miles before you enter the Vancouver UGB, though that gap is also urbanized so I'm not sure what all the UGBs mean. Then there's the Camas and Washougal UGBs to the east...
Posted by Bob | May 8, 2007 3:08 PM
they have one, adopted in the Nineties. different rules (and a slightly different name) than ours, though. it's part of a 20-year arrangement.
i believe it was required by the state's Growth Management Act, similar to our statewide planning goals from way back when.
Posted by ecohuman.com | May 8, 2007 3:15 PM
You're right about unsustainable. Cessnas won't run on ethanol.
Posted by Dave Lister | May 8, 2007 3:47 PM
I thought they got in trouble for being in violation of the state's GMA but it was basically too late, the developments were allready in place.
Posted by Eric | May 8, 2007 3:53 PM
I remember hearing about them having a UGB too. However, they seem to have done it the right way - without taking away property owners rights AND without jamming everyone into a condo. This is one time I'd like to emulate Washington.
Posted by mmmarvel | May 8, 2007 5:00 PM
...they seem to have done it the right way
If that's the case, I don't think I'd care to see what happens when it's done the wrong way.
Eric has it right; it was done way too late.
Posted by John Rettig | May 8, 2007 6:36 PM
You can find Vancouver UGB here.
Posted by Lc Scott | May 8, 2007 7:42 PM
I'm thinking MMMarvel hasn't actually spent any time trying to get from a point A in East Vancouver to some Point B a half a mile away as the crow flies but with a few housing developments inbetween and no straight roads. If he has and he considers that the right way to develop, I agree I'd hate to see the wrong way.
Posted by Eric | May 9, 2007 2:29 PM