Oregon Communities
For a Voice In Annexations
OCVA responds to Senator Beyer re: SB 1573
OCVA responds to Senator Beyer's false impressions about democratic involvement in decisions about the costs and benefits of community growth.
Beyer: Having been involved with Oregon's land use system since the 1970s as a planning commissioner, city councilor and general land use advocate, I disagree [with voting on annexations]. I totally support a community's right to plan for the development level they desire -- including no growth at all.
OCVA: Forty years of experience should teach Beyer that community planning is not a “right” but a legal requirement. In 1973, SB 100 the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Act required cities and counties to develop comprehensive land use plans.
Beyer: But those decisions should be made during the planning and zoning process, not afterward.
OCVA: Beyer knows planning commissions and city councils frequently include people who believe market-driven land use is superior to community-centered development. State law allows city planning commissions to have at least two members principally engaged 'in the buying, selling or developing of real estate for profit as individuals, or be members of any partnership, or officers or employees of any corporation, that engages principally in the buying, selling or developing of real estate for profit. No more than two members shall be engaged in the same kind of occupation, business, trade or profession.' [Amended by 1969 c.430 §1; 1973 c.739 §2; 1975 c.767 §3]. ORS 227.030 Sec 4.
Beyer: A property owner who has invested in property that was designated by the community for development should be allowed to bring it into the city if all appropriate infrastructure is in place or available.
OCVA: That's a big “if” because infrastructure is often underfunded because current residents are already funding infrastructure for past growth and new residents can't pay their share. See Fodor p. 29.
Beyer: If that means they have to pay the full cost of installing the infrastructure, so be it.
OCVA: Beyer seems willing to have the contractors and developers pay their share of the costs of growth. If they did they would be “investing in their own market,” a win/win for communities too.
Beyer: But complying with the state land use goals by designating property for development and then not allowing it is not fair or appropriate.
OCVA: State land use goals may “designate” property for development but it can't “require” development. However once land is annexed developers can compel cities to provide the necessary infrastructure for development.
Beyer: As we all know, cities decide on the legality of annexations BUT only citizens are likely to consider matters frequently ignored, understated or lied about by the “deciders”.
A property owner who has invested in property that was designated by the community for development should be allowed to bring it into the city if all appropriate infrastructure is in place or available.
OCVA: BUT that's not what SB 1573-A says or does!!!!
Beyer: If that means they have to pay the full cost of installing the infrastructure, so be it.
OCVA: BUT that's not what SB 1573-A says or does!!!! There are no laws on the books that require house marketers to pay the full costs of growth and NO WAY TO COMPEL THEM TO.
Beyer: But complying with the state land use goals by designating property for development and then not allowing it is not fair or appropriate.
OCVA: Neither is it fair or appropriate to stick the citizens with one-sided partnerships where citizens pay the major portion of infrastructure costs up front AND FOREVER PAY FOR MAINTENANCE - while they endure growth that puts profits before community life.
Beyer: It makes a mockery of our land use planning system.
OCVA: The ONLY thing that makes a mockery of the system are decisions that ignore the right to vote for or against development that impacts their homes and communities.
Beyer: If citizens want to vote on development, which I would support, it should be on approval of changes to the community land use plan and/or UGC.
OCVA: Do you support citizens desire to vote on development? Let's work on a bill.
Updated June 18, 2016