happy (late) thanksgiving
Enough' is a feast.
Buddhist Proverb
Up Sucker Creek
Photo Courtesy of the Lake Oswego Library
Saturday, November 28, 2015
When a city over-regulates land
No amount of land-use regulation will ever be enough - that would mean government would have reached a state of perfection - which doesn't exist. What we are left with is an increasingly aggressive regulatory environment that is chasing an ever-decreasing rate of return. When is enough enough? Where will we end up?
Land use regulations exist because some people want to be sure their neighbors act in a way they find appropriate. Some regulations are good. But when the general public's freedoms are too restricted, people may not want, nor be able to afford to keep up with increasing requirements. The value of all of the land in the city is subject to a decrease in value when property upkeep and maintenance deteriorates and potential buyers perceive there is an overly-controling regulatory environment.
Who can afford all of the government's rules and requirements? Why would one willingly subject themselves to an additional cost burden to live in one town if there were better alternatives?
If Lake Oswego wants to be considered desirable and competitive, for residents and business, it needs to examine its regulatory controls over private property and lifestyle choices. Even the most wealthy resident will not stand by and watch their cost of living go up and up when they can choose to live elsewhere. Many of Lake Oswego's most onerous land use regulations are "self"-inflicted by our own staff and political leaders.
Be informed about what is going on in City Hall and speak up and vote accordingly.
From PERC: Property Environment Research Center
THE ECONOMICS OF LAND-USE REGULATIONS
By Matthew Turner, Fall/Winter 2014
A new study says a little less may be more
Excerpt:
WITH THIS IN MIND, our results are striking. There is a clear decrease in land values as we cross into more heavily regulated municipalities. There is also a steep decline in the share of land developed in more regulated municipalities. In short, the own-lot effect of land-use regulations is clearly negative and sufficiently large to warrant concern.
- See more at: http://www.perc.org/articles/economics-land-use-regulations#.dpuf
In every civilized society property rights
must be carefully safeguarded; ordinarily
and in the great majority of cases,
human rights and property rights are
fundamentally and in the long run, identical.
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Land use regulations exist because some people want to be sure their neighbors act in a way they find appropriate. Some regulations are good. But when the general public's freedoms are too restricted, people may not want, nor be able to afford to keep up with increasing requirements. The value of all of the land in the city is subject to a decrease in value when property upkeep and maintenance deteriorates and potential buyers perceive there is an overly-controling regulatory environment.
Who can afford all of the government's rules and requirements? Why would one willingly subject themselves to an additional cost burden to live in one town if there were better alternatives?
If Lake Oswego wants to be considered desirable and competitive, for residents and business, it needs to examine its regulatory controls over private property and lifestyle choices. Even the most wealthy resident will not stand by and watch their cost of living go up and up when they can choose to live elsewhere. Many of Lake Oswego's most onerous land use regulations are "self"-inflicted by our own staff and political leaders.
Be informed about what is going on in City Hall and speak up and vote accordingly.
From PERC: Property Environment Research Center
THE ECONOMICS OF LAND-USE REGULATIONS
By Matthew Turner, Fall/Winter 2014
A new study says a little less may be more
Excerpt:
WITH THIS IN MIND, our results are striking. There is a clear decrease in land values as we cross into more heavily regulated municipalities. There is also a steep decline in the share of land developed in more regulated municipalities. In short, the own-lot effect of land-use regulations is clearly negative and sufficiently large to warrant concern.
More surprising, we find that prices drop slightly as we move further into the interior of more regulated municipalities. That is, land-use regulations seem to be having a negative external effect. This suggests that the regulatory burden may be high enough that it reduces people’s willingness to maintain or improve their properties. In this case, as we travel into more regulated municipalities, we are likely to be traveling into neighborhoods that are less well maintained.
The potential upside of land-use regulations—and the reason they are so pervasive—is that regulations might reduce the irritations that your unregulated neighbors cause you. Our data, however, suggest that the external benefits of land-use regulations do not outweigh the costs of regulations, particularly if we account for the decrease in the total amount of land developed. That is, at the margin, land-use regulations are even more irritating than your neighbors would be if they were given a little more freedom.
The implications of our research are straightforward. The benefits from a modest reduction in land-use regulations are likely to be greater than the benefits landowners receive from regulating their neighbors.
Read more: “Land Use Regulation and Welfare,” by Matthew A. Turner, Andrew Haughwout, and Wilbert van der Klaauw. Econometrica, Vol. 82, No. 4 (July 2014).
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Raining on our parade
The stormwater police are gearing up to expand their (work)force and fire power. This time it's city engineering staff that wants to pick your pocket, take part of your yard, and load you with odious regulations related to rain water. Remember, it's the government's water.
Oh no! People covered with large, impervious surfaces!
Why?
Why the extreme rules? What problems are the staff trying to solve?
According to the Lake Oswego Review, city Stormwater Manager, Anne MacDonald, said that the streams and lakes in the city do not meet water quality standards. But that is not what the TMDL Report says. Oswego Lake has a problem with phosphorous and a couple of streams are too warm. Did I miss something? Another lake perhaps?
According to the Lake Oswego Review, city Stormwater Manager, Anne MacDonald, said that the streams and lakes in the city do not meet water quality standards. But that is not what the TMDL Report says. Oswego Lake has a problem with phosphorous and a couple of streams are too warm. Did I miss something? Another lake perhaps?
Are the proposed regulations required by the state or federal government?
Some. A lot of the proposed new rules go way beyond what are required by DEQ. The proposed codes don't separate the two.
Some. A lot of the proposed new rules go way beyond what are required by DEQ. The proposed codes don't separate the two.
How many new city employees and consultants would it take to create, administer, inspect and enforce the new rules and how much would it cost?
Good question, but it's obvious that MacDonald cannot do everything herself. The head of the engineering department, Erica Rooney, said they were being run ragged as it is. As time went on, the sheer volume of installations to administer, inspect, follow and enforce would be enormous. All those new deed restrictions are to track compliance.
“A big part of the city has never been looked at for stormwater management — older sections and subdivisions never had requirements 40 or 50 years ago,” says Planning Commission Vice Chairman John LaMotte. “The city has to catch up (to stormwater requirements) in these areas.”
What is happening to our property rights?
Good question, but it's obvious that MacDonald cannot do everything herself. The head of the engineering department, Erica Rooney, said they were being run ragged as it is. As time went on, the sheer volume of installations to administer, inspect, follow and enforce would be enormous. All those new deed restrictions are to track compliance.
“A big part of the city has never been looked at for stormwater management — older sections and subdivisions never had requirements 40 or 50 years ago,” says Planning Commission Vice Chairman John LaMotte. “The city has to catch up (to stormwater requirements) in these areas.”
"LaMotte says the proposed changes to the city’s Stormwater Management Manual implement “more modern” techniques for addressing runoff." (LO Review)
Older sections of town have to "catch up"? Be "more modern"? There will always be newer, "more modern" methods to do everything. How far will our regulatory machine go? What is happening to our property rights?
Why would the citizens, Planning Commission and City Council allow these over-the-top rules to be approved?
Another good question. In times past (and not that long ago), the city adopted the least restrictive regulations that the state required so as not to impose undue hardship and rules on citizens. This made for a happier town. At some point, about 13 or so years ago, it became the fashion to follow Portland's decent down the rabbit hole of smart growth. This resulted in a new age of eco-zealotry, over-bearing, neighbor-spying-on-neighbor, regulatory hell. There are thousands of citizens who want their city back and don't want to have it run by "staff" and NGO activists. This IS a HOME RULE city. Just do it!
Another good question. In times past (and not that long ago), the city adopted the least restrictive regulations that the state required so as not to impose undue hardship and rules on citizens. This made for a happier town. At some point, about 13 or so years ago, it became the fashion to follow Portland's decent down the rabbit hole of smart growth. This resulted in a new age of eco-zealotry, over-bearing, neighbor-spying-on-neighbor, regulatory hell. There are thousands of citizens who want their city back and don't want to have it run by "staff" and NGO activists. This IS a HOME RULE city. Just do it!
Who is making policy and running this town?
We'll see. The Stormwater Management Manual is mainly a policy statement with code language. Will the Planning Commission and City Council misinterpret (with staff help) as a required regulatory necessity, or understand that they get to decide what direction this town goes in? Code follows policy, so get the policy right. Once approved, the combined policies and code, written by staff, would be difficult or impossible to change.
=||=
On Monday night, there will be a Public Hearing on new policies and codes that will establish the conditions and methods property owners will have to follow to take care of rain water that has the audacity to fall on their land. Uninvited, like a bad party guest. But now that it's on your property, it's your responsibility. Maybe.
I know of a couple of developments where the stormwater systems installed per the new dictates don't work. Downhill neighbors are getting more than their share of water and grief. It isn't supposed to be their problem, but the codes are final, so what are they going to do? (Downhillers who complain are called "whiners" - don't listen to them.)
There is every reason to disapprove this SMM. A delay of a decision so that the public can have meaningful (advertised and solicited) input is ideal. At the Open House in October, MacDonald explained that the schedule for work sessions and public hearings was the shortest possible timeframe possible as this document was being fast-tracked. When that happens, it is typically done to avoid close scrutiny. There is no magic behind the concepts in this book. The main points are the minimum triggers for when a property owner would be swept up into the program, and what would be the extent of the new regulations. In both cases, the minimum limits go way beyond what DEQ requires.
Is the kind of city you want to live in?
Whose city is it?
I know of a couple of developments where the stormwater systems installed per the new dictates don't work. Downhill neighbors are getting more than their share of water and grief. It isn't supposed to be their problem, but the codes are final, so what are they going to do? (Downhillers who complain are called "whiners" - don't listen to them.)
Planning Commission
Public Hearing for Stormwater Management Manual
Monday, November 23, 2015
5:30 PM at City Hall
There is every reason to disapprove this SMM. A delay of a decision so that the public can have meaningful (advertised and solicited) input is ideal. At the Open House in October, MacDonald explained that the schedule for work sessions and public hearings was the shortest possible timeframe possible as this document was being fast-tracked. When that happens, it is typically done to avoid close scrutiny. There is no magic behind the concepts in this book. The main points are the minimum triggers for when a property owner would be swept up into the program, and what would be the extent of the new regulations. In both cases, the minimum limits go way beyond what DEQ requires.
Is the kind of city you want to live in?
Whose city is it?
Monday, November 16, 2015
It's that time of year
It's November
It's the start of the rainy season in the Northwest
But who's rain is it?
The forecast for winter 2015-2016 is for a lot of precipitation, so get out those rain barrels and fill them up! So far, you don't need a permit to harvest rain in Oregon, but you never know how long that free rain will last. It appears that rain, like the air we breathe, is a free resource, but once it hits the Earth (or your roof) it becomes part of the Waters of the U. S.
About rain barrels - will someone please tell me how useful they are? In the rainy season you don't need to capture water, and in the dry season, a barrel (or two or three) of water won't do very much.
With the price of water going up (and up), a well would be nice, but the city collects most of its money from fees assessed on a per household basis, not on water use, so having one's own water source would not cut down on those water fees by much.
And then there is the monthly storm water fee. Will new construction be able to catch a break on their monthly fees since property owners will have to put in their own infiltration systems? Not likely. The existing stormwater system must be maintained for existing development, and now for all of those private infiltration systems that don't work.
Rain - you can't live without it, but when the government gets involved, you might wish you could!
By the way, did you hear about the guy in Clackamas County who.....
CCBOC November 5, 2015 Video ~58:00
(Jonathan Todd)
(Jonathan Todd)
Saturday, November 14, 2015
Housing shortages mean new rules
Housing shortages incite local governments to control rental market
Is it right for cities to dictate how private homes are used in order to solve a city-wide, government-created, social problem?
Some cities want to limit or ban short-term home and apartment rentals for different reasons.
Traditional vacation towns like Cannon Beach have struggled with tourists overtaking neighborhoods where full-time residents live and have limited total days a house can be rented to restore neighborhood stability. Next on the list may be Gearhart.
The newest category of cities to restrict short-term housing rentals are those with housing shortages. The feeling in these cities is that homeowners are taking homes that would normally be sold or used as long-term rentals off the market in order to rent to tourists. Rent for just a few days or weeks can easily bring in what one month of normal rent would be, but with the supply of housing low, affordable housing is hard to come by.
Have you heard of these firms (see below) before? This is the planning team for a study of the urban growth boundary for the Hood River School District. At least 4 of the firms (that I know of) have worked for Lake Oswego. They are representative of the consultant cog of the government/industrial machine that is keeping housing so expensive. These firms work regionally and nationally and all work from the same script. Is there any wonder why all comprehensive plans (and other local land use plans) look the same? See how many people made money just from the (small) Hood River School District:
Here is how it works:
1. Government creates an artificial shortage of buildable land with an urban growth boundary (see map above). The price of land goes up when demand exceeds supply. Housing prices rise with the high cost of land.
2. Smart growth (high density) land use strategies are employed to deal with the [artificial] housing crisis. (The crisis is real, but the cause is artificial and can be reversed quickly.). "Never let a good crisis go to waste." And if there isn't a crisis to further your cause, create one.
3. New housing types are planned, but because land is still in short supply, even new, smaller, denser housing units are pricey.
4. Repeat #2 and 3 indefinately, add public housing and increase regulations on private residential property. The crisis is here to stay. High housing prices, loss of property rights and class warfare ensue.
Why can't houses be built beyond the UGB in this 9k-person town?
When will politicians get smarter than the Central Planners and consultants who concoct and profit from these bad plans?
Hood River, dealing with housing affordability issues, tackles short-term rentals
Oregonian, Novembr 1, 2015
City Council holds hearing on strategies for housing
Hood River News, August 7, 2015
Is it right for cities to dictate how private homes are used in order to solve a city-wide, government-created, social problem?
Some cities want to limit or ban short-term home and apartment rentals for different reasons.
Traditional vacation towns like Cannon Beach have struggled with tourists overtaking neighborhoods where full-time residents live and have limited total days a house can be rented to restore neighborhood stability. Next on the list may be Gearhart.
The newest category of cities to restrict short-term housing rentals are those with housing shortages. The feeling in these cities is that homeowners are taking homes that would normally be sold or used as long-term rentals off the market in order to rent to tourists. Rent for just a few days or weeks can easily bring in what one month of normal rent would be, but with the supply of housing low, affordable housing is hard to come by.
- What is causing the housing shortage (and high prices) in some cities besides the obvious popularity of the area?
- Are government smart growth policies to blame for the high cost of housing with artificial limitations on the supply of buildable land and other land use requirements?
- Behind all the regulations, who promoting smart growth in small towns, and why?
Project Team
Angelo Planning Group
Archeological Investigations Northwest
Cogan Owens Cogan
ECONorthwest
Kittelson and Associates
Turnstone Environmental
Here is how it works:
1. Government creates an artificial shortage of buildable land with an urban growth boundary (see map above). The price of land goes up when demand exceeds supply. Housing prices rise with the high cost of land.
2. Smart growth (high density) land use strategies are employed to deal with the [artificial] housing crisis. (The crisis is real, but the cause is artificial and can be reversed quickly.). "Never let a good crisis go to waste." And if there isn't a crisis to further your cause, create one.
3. New housing types are planned, but because land is still in short supply, even new, smaller, denser housing units are pricey.
4. Repeat #2 and 3 indefinately, add public housing and increase regulations on private residential property. The crisis is here to stay. High housing prices, loss of property rights and class warfare ensue.
Why can't houses be built beyond the UGB in this 9k-person town?
When will politicians get smarter than the Central Planners and consultants who concoct and profit from these bad plans?
Hood River, dealing with housing affordability issues, tackles short-term rentals
Oregonian, Novembr 1, 2015
City Council holds hearing on strategies for housing
Hood River News, August 7, 2015
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Back from Texas
Landing in Dallas, besides the weather change from rain to warm sunshine, we realized we had entered a new territory with an entirely different mindset.
Before we even left DFW, we were surprised to
see the amazing array of SUVs available for rent: BIG SUVs, small SUVs, crossover SUVs, luxury SUVs, 4WD trucks and vans, and more. Regular cars were clearly in the minority. Texas is not apologetic about using SUVs the way greenies want us to feel on the West Coast. Automobiles (and personal freedom) rule in Texas - especially trucks.
Texas is an economic powerhouse drawing newcomers from all over the country; Texas has four of the top ten largest metropolitan areas in the U.S.: Houstin, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Austin, San Antinio. Housing is in short supply, and the apartment boom is in full swing there too. However, in all cases, homes are still a lot more affordable than in West Coast cities where land use (and land supply) regulations take their toll on housing affordability. (Below: homes in Dallas' north suburbs from $199k to $400k - from 3 to 5 bedrooms, all with pools). Austin is losing its affordability.
Austin is a blue city in a red state. Some things work well, but the growing emphasis on smart growth and light rail is telling. It's just not persuasive. You want vibrant? Go to 6th Street. But don't go the ground-floor, mixed-use, walkable developments near transit. These new place-making places are so generic they feel like just another Olive Garden or Chili's in another mini-mall. You can't "make" "vibrant" without lots and lots of free alcohol.
Trivia:
* San Angelo is the largest city in the U.S. that
* Highway speeds limit on the cross-state freeways are (officially) 80 mph. Great for making that trip to Far Far West Texas.
* The Marfa Mystery Lights are real, but what are they really?
* The stars and galaxies in Dark Sky communities like Ft. Davis are breathtaking! (Clear skies help too.)
* Texans love their BBQ, chili cook-offs, cowboy culture, football and independence. I hope the influx of newcomers does not change the essential character of Texas like it did Oregon.
Back home in Lake Oswego. It's good to be in one's own space, even if it raining and cold. But the general feeling of oppression that hangs over our state and city - unnecessarily - is disturbing. We need to learn a few old-fashioned lessons on freedom and mobility from Texas, and they should be looking to Portland for lessons on how their dreams can go astray, even with the best of intentions.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
A godless religion for alarmists
In a Wall Street Journal commentary, the author, Brett Stephens wonders about the motivations of people willing to believe and act on failed "big ideas" of an apolyptic future. He cites Paul Erlich's dire predictions of mass starvation due to population overkill (we should be all be dead by now), and the Chinese experiment with the one-child policy that resulted in forced sterilization and now a dearth of young workers to support the elderly. Mass starvation has not occurred because of overpopulation but from political unrest, poor farming practices and weather-related crop failures. But predictions of a doom-and-gloom future by mainly liberal thinkers continues. Why?
The writer, like many others, concludes that "as the alarmists fed the hysteria, the hysteria fed the alarmists." It's a religious movement for the Godless: Apolyptic end times are nigh unless we repent and change our wicked ways. Who is attracted to these beliefs, and why?
Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2015 By Bret Stephens
The Tyranny of a Big Idea
Modern liberals are best understood as would-be believers in search of true faith.
Power is seductive, as are fame and wealth, and it’s easy to see how being a scientific prophet of doom afforded access to all three. So long as the alarmists fed the hysteria, the hysteria would feed the alarmists—with no end of lucrative book contracts and lavish conferences in exotic destinations to keep the cycle going. It’s also not surprising that someone like Mr. Ehrlich, trained as an entomologist, would be tempted to think of human beings as merely a larger type of insect.
The writer, like many others, concludes that "as the alarmists fed the hysteria, the hysteria fed the alarmists." It's a religious movement for the Godless: Apolyptic end times are nigh unless we repent and change our wicked ways. Who is attracted to these beliefs, and why?
Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2015 By Bret Stephens
The Tyranny of a Big Idea
Modern liberals are best understood as would-be believers in search of true faith.
But the real question isn’t what drives people to be leaders of a new movement. That’s easy enough to understand. It’s why so many people—usually well-educated, urbane liberals—would wish to be followers.
It isn’t the strength of the evidence. The idea of a population bomb was always preposterous: The world’s 7.3 billion people could fit into an area the size of Texas, with each person getting 1,000 square feet of personal space. Food has never been more abundant. As for resource scarcity, the fracking revolution reminds us that scarcity is not so much a threat to mankind as it is an opportunity for innovation.
What matters, rather, is the strength of the longing. Modern liberalism is best understood as a movement of would-be believers in search of true faith. For much of the 20th century it was faith in History, especially in its Marxist interpretation. Now it’s faith in the environment. Each is a comprehensive belief system, an instruction sheet on how to live, eat and reproduce, a story of how man fell and how he might be redeemed, a tale of impending crisis that’s also a moral crucible.
In short, a religion without God. I sometimes wonder whether the journalists now writing about the failure of the one-child policy ever note the similarities with today’s climate “crisis.” That the fears are largely the same. And the political prescriptions are almost identical. And the leaders of the movement are cut from the same cloth. And the confidence with which the alarmists prescribe radical cures, their intolerance for dissenting views, their insistence on “global solutions,” their disdain for democratic input or technological adaptations—that everything is just as it was when bell-bottoms were in vogue.
Saturday, October 24, 2015
EPA extends power over states
For the second time in the last few months, a sizable group of states have filed suit against th EPA. In each case, the plaintiffs assert the EPA has overstepped its powers to make regulations that will limit freedoms and raise household expenses for Americans: One is called the Clean Power Rule, and the other is the Clean Water Rule.
The impacts of EPA's plans are wide-reaching and can be a hardship for many people. These rules are the equivalent of heavy taxes on every property owner (and renter) and every person who uses electricity and heats their home. Even though people will be cold and broke, they should feel proud that they are doing something noble for the common good.
After all, it's for the planet!
(Is there enough wind and sun to power the planet's needs?)
Below are excerpts from articles in the US News and The Wall Street Journal.
US News, October 24, 2015 By Michael Biesecker AP
States and industry groups reliant on fossil fuelschallengeObama's Cean Power Plan in Court
"The Clean Power Plan is one of the most far-reaching energy regulations in this nation's history," said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, among those leading the challenges. "I have a responsibility to protect the lives of millions of working families, the elderly and the poor, from such illegal and unconscionable federal government actions."
The Obama administration and environmental groups counter that the rules are needed to cut carbon emissions while curbing the worst impacts of climate change and sea-level rise. They also say the plan will spur new clean-energy jobs.
The EPA says it has authority to enact the plan under the Clean Air Act. At issue are dueling provisions added to the law by the House and Senate in 1990. The EPA's interpretation relies on the Senate language, but opponents argue that the House version should win out.
EPA already regulates other powerplant pollutants under a different section of the Clean Air Act, and the opponents claim the law prohibits "double regulation."
The states challenging the plan in court are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming and Wisconsin.
Wall Street Journal, October 24, 2015 By Amy Harder and Brent Kendall
States Sue Over EPA Clean Power Rules
Challengers are expected to focus on whether the EPA exceeded its powers by pushing utilitiesto shift to cleaner forms of energy
WASHINGTON—What could be a yearslong legal and political battle over the Obama administration’s main climate change initiative formally kicked off Friday, with two dozen states filing a lawsuit against regulations aimed at cutting U.S. carbon emissions.
Senior EPA officials say they are confident the rules, known as the Clean Power Plan, are legally sound.
The impacts of EPA's plans are wide-reaching and can be a hardship for many people. These rules are the equivalent of heavy taxes on every property owner (and renter) and every person who uses electricity and heats their home. Even though people will be cold and broke, they should feel proud that they are doing something noble for the common good.
After all, it's for the planet!
(Is there enough wind and sun to power the planet's needs?)
Below are excerpts from articles in the US News and The Wall Street Journal.
US News, October 24, 2015 By Michael Biesecker AP
States and industry groups reliant on fossil fuelschallengeObama's Cean Power Plan in Court
"The Clean Power Plan is one of the most far-reaching energy regulations in this nation's history," said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, among those leading the challenges. "I have a responsibility to protect the lives of millions of working families, the elderly and the poor, from such illegal and unconscionable federal government actions."
The Obama administration and environmental groups counter that the rules are needed to cut carbon emissions while curbing the worst impacts of climate change and sea-level rise. They also say the plan will spur new clean-energy jobs.
The EPA says it has authority to enact the plan under the Clean Air Act. At issue are dueling provisions added to the law by the House and Senate in 1990. The EPA's interpretation relies on the Senate language, but opponents argue that the House version should win out.
EPA already regulates other powerplant pollutants under a different section of the Clean Air Act, and the opponents claim the law prohibits "double regulation."
The states challenging the plan in court are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming and Wisconsin.
Wall Street Journal, October 24, 2015 By Amy Harder and Brent Kendall
States Sue Over EPA Clean Power Rules
Challengers are expected to focus on whether the EPA exceeded its powers by pushing utilitiesto shift to cleaner forms of energy
WASHINGTON—What could be a yearslong legal and political battle over the Obama administration’s main climate change initiative formally kicked off Friday, with two dozen states filing a lawsuit against regulations aimed at cutting U.S. carbon emissions.
The states sued in a federal court here to challenge the rules, which seek to reduce carbon output from hundreds of power plants across the nation. Congressional Republicans also said Friday they would introduce measures in the coming week seeking to block the rules.
In the works since 2013 and issued in early August, the regulations require a 32% cut in powerplant carbon emissions by 2030 based on emissions levels of 2005. They are designed to force the utility industry, the largest source of U.S. carbon emissions that contribute to climate change, to shift toward cleaner-burning energy sources over the next several decades.
The EPA is relying upon a seldom-used section of the Clean Air Act called 111(d) as its authority for the rules, which leaves an opening for legal scrutiny. Challengers are expeced to focus on whether the agency exceeded its powers by pushing utilities to shift to cleaner forms of energy instead of just focusing on pollution controls at fossil-fuel-fired power plants.
Senior EPA officials say they are confident the rules, known as the Clean Power Plan, are legally sound.
“The Clean Power Plan has strong scientific and legal foundations, provides states with broad flexibilities to design and implement plans, and is clearly within EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Friday.
The state coalition’s lawsuit against the EPA was filed Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit, a powerful federal court that regularly reviews the legality of government regulations.
Many of the states and politicians leading the legal and political challenges, including West Virginia and Kentucky, depend heavily on coal for their economies and electricity. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said the EPA rule was illegal and “one of the most aggressive executive-branch power grabs we’ve seen in a long time.”
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
An Aesop's Fable for our times
Aesop's Fables
by Aesop
“THE MAN AND THE WOOD”
A Man came into a Wood one day with an axe in his hand, and begged all the Trees to give him a small branch which he wanted for a particular purpose. The Trees were good-natured and gave him one of their branches. What did the Man do but fix it into the axe head, and soon set to work cutting down tree after tree. Then the Trees saw how foolish they had been in giving their enemy the means of destroying themselves.
The City of Lake Oswego is proposing new regulations that will require stormwater infiltration on all new construction AND some remodeling (driveway replacement or adding a second story to a one-story house), even if the footprint of impervious surfaces has not changed, or unless adding more than 200 sf to a home. The new infiltration systems will need a O/M Plan and a restriction on the deed
Ok you think. This won't really affect me. It's sort of like the Sensitive Lands program - even if there are good intentions, I don't think it will work, and I wouldn't want to deal with the regulations on my property anyway! Dodged that bullet!
Then maybe the City Engineers decide that all properties in the city need to be covered by the same rules. You weren't thinking about that - that wasn't the deal. You thought They would leave your house alone and you could ignore the intrusive and expensive stormwater codes. The stormwater rules are part of the regulatory creep of government. More government control, less freedom, more bureaucrats to administer, and rules to enforce, more unhappiness about where you live and wonder a out how it all got so bad.
When City Engineers filed the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) last year, the stage was set for what we see now. But we don't have to accept what is being proposed in the current Stormwater Management Manual / Plan. Much of the extreme regulation that is being suggested is not required by DEQ - it appears to be a construct of staff thinking.
Don't give government the means to destroy your city and your home.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Who sets stormwater policy in Lake Oswego?
Piling on regulations while no one is looking
Housing in Lake Oswego will never be the same.
If it's expensive now, it will be much more expensive tomorrow.
If it's expensive now, it will be much more expensive tomorrow.
It appears the engineering department has sole custody of all policy, code, permitting, implementation and enforcement activities in the city. Policy-making is a legislative act and mainly a function of the city council. The Stormwater Management Manual has been put into practice NOW, before the planning commission or city council have even seen the actual implementing policies and codes. A display of confidence that staff's plans are golden.
From workshop for design community held October 15: (note second bullet point)
Can you imagine what these new infiltration systems might cost with all the technical plans, permits, submittals, inspections, construction and maintenance? And the O and M (Operations and Maintenance) plan that goes with the system? And what needs to be filed with the property deed? Even if infiltration systems are required, I can't imagine how the Feds or the State would require a deed restriction and an O and M plan. LO is famous for piling on codes for no good reason. If I were a builder today, I would ignore the plan until I was required by law to implement it. Housing prices in LO will climb even higher, contrary to our Comp Plan requirement for affordable housing.
Here is what I imagine goes on in City Hall:
"That's a good idea!"
"Yes. Let's make a regulation to make it happen"
"What will it cost?
"Cost is not the issue. It's for the planet."
"Won't people object?"
"It doesn't matter. We've already locked the city into our plan with the TMDL that we filed, even though the City Council wanted us to wait for the Sensitive Lands code to be fixed."
From the draft code for the Stormwater Management Plan: (emphasis mine). Code is to be discussed at the Monday, October 26, Planning Commission Meeting. Full draft of implementing code is attached to the agenda. Read all the documents you can, plan on going to the meeting or commenting beforehand. Comments here will be heard.
Comment: Maintenance is defined as, “Upkeep or repair of any structure or site feature necessary to keep the
structure or site feature in good and safe condition...” (e.g., replacing a roof or resurfacing an existing driveway)
and does not trigger stormwater requirements. Development (e.g., increasing the building height one story,
rebuilding a street or driveway) would trigger stormwater requirements, even if the footprint does not change.
The City is required by the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit to reduce pollutant discharge to receiving waters “to the maximum extent practicable.” For large projects (≥ 3,000 square feet), the permit explicitly requires that City standards:
Requiring the inclusion of stormwater management at the time of development has been determined to be a practicable approach to upgrading stormwater management “to current code” just as might be required within the footprint of the development upon property transfer or remodeling. This is consistent with all other Phase I MS4-permitted jurisdictions in Oregon (i.e., Portland-area, Salem, and Eugene).
The City is required by the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit to reduce pollutant discharge to receiving waters “to the maximum extent practicable.” For large projects (≥ 3,000 square feet), the permit explicitly requires that City standards:
-
1) Incorporate site-specific management practices that target natural surface or
predevelopment hydrologic functions as much as practicable. The site-specific
management practices should optimize on-site retention based on the site conditions;
-
2) Reduce site specific post-development stormwater runoff volume, duration and rates
of discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) to minimize
hydrological and water quality impacts from impervious surfaces;
-
3) Prioritize and include implementation of Low-Impact Development (LID), Green
Infrastructure (GI) or equivalent design and construction approaches; and,
-
4) Capture and treat 80% of the annual average runoff volume, based on a documented
local or regional rainfall frequency and intensity.
Requiring the inclusion of stormwater management at the time of development has been determined to be a practicable approach to upgrading stormwater management “to current code” just as might be required within the footprint of the development upon property transfer or remodeling. This is consistent with all other Phase I MS4-permitted jurisdictions in Oregon (i.e., Portland-area, Salem, and Eugene).
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Rainy season water disposal
Who own's the rain?
The City already held a workshop for design professionals (landscape architects, geotechnical engineers, architects, builders, etc) who will have to deal with new stormwater regulations. This is unusual since the new codes have not been approved and won't go to Council for a final vote until at least January 19, 2017.
It appears the Engineering Department is confident that nothing the public, the Planning Commission or the City Council has to say will change anything. Why the confidence?
Given that the Waters of the U.S. Clean Water Rule has an injunction against its implementation, it would be wise to halt any regulation dependent upon this rule for now. If strict regulations go into effect now, it is very likely that even if the Clean Water Rule is thrown out, Lake Oswego will be left with the more restrictive regulations because of the state DEQ's "no rollback" rule.
Review the materials linked below and attend this Open House. Come prepared with questions.
Stormwater Management Plan Open House:
Thursday, October 22, 6:30 to 9:30 at City Hall
This Manual, and related amendments to the City’s drainage and surface water utility codes, is a requirement of our current NPDES stormwater permit. The Manual emphasizes the use of infiltration-based approaches to stormwater management where possible, along with other low-impact development (LID) techniques to minimize runoff from roofs, streets, driveways, and other impervious surfaces. The manual will apply to the design of newly developing and re-developing sites, and has requirements based on different thresholds of impervious surface area.
Comments on the Public Review Draft Lake Oswego Stormwater Management Manual can be sent to the City here. Comments on the manual received by October 31, 2015, will be addressed in the Staff Report for the upcoming Planning Commission hearing on accompanying code amendments.
Some of the code amendments require concurrence of the Planning Commission, and all code changes require approval by the City Council. the current schedule for these actions is:
Links to the proposed code amendments and supporting documents can be found after October 16, 2015 here as part of the agenda for the October 26th Planning Commission meeting.
Those darned whiteflies!
I really hate it when the whiteflies follow me into the car - I can't close my car door fast enough to keep a few from getting in. Everyone is asking about them. If you don't read the Oregonian, here's their take on the fly.
Don't pick up hitchhikers!
Does this white-winged inspect bug you? How to deal with ash whiteflies.
The Oregonian, October 17, 2015. By Kim Pokorny
Clouds of small white-winged insects flying around homes, gardens and even parking lots up and down the Willamette Valley have the public more than a little annoyed.
"The ash whitefly, which was first detected last year, is becoming quite noticeable for most of us, particularly in the metro area, because they're floating around in high numbers," said Robin Rosetta, an entomologist with Oregon State University's Extension Service.
So far, limited plant damage has been detected in Oregon, according to Rosetta, though the ash whitefly (Siphoninus phillyeae) can cause curled or stunted leaves and, in some cases, defoliation. The sap-sucking insect has a long list of plants it prefers.
To read more about the whitefly, and what you can (and can't) do about it, click HERE.
Don't pick up hitchhikers!
Does this white-winged inspect bug you? How to deal with ash whiteflies.
The Oregonian, October 17, 2015. By Kim Pokorny
Clouds of small white-winged insects flying around homes, gardens and even parking lots up and down the Willamette Valley have the public more than a little annoyed.
"The ash whitefly, which was first detected last year, is becoming quite noticeable for most of us, particularly in the metro area, because they're floating around in high numbers," said Robin Rosetta, an entomologist with Oregon State University's Extension Service.
So far, limited plant damage has been detected in Oregon, according to Rosetta, though the ash whitefly (Siphoninus phillyeae) can cause curled or stunted leaves and, in some cases, defoliation. The sap-sucking insect has a long list of plants it prefers.
To read more about the whitefly, and what you can (and can't) do about it, click HERE.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
At the barbershop
Gossip. News. Debates.
Where do you go to talk?
The barbershop, the beauty parlour, the neighborhood pub...these are places you go to catch up on what's going on with your neighbors, people you've never met, and everything big and small that happens around town. If you want to get the pulse of what the community, go get your hair cut.
What does the community thinks about the city's tree code? Get yourself to a beauty shop and start the conversation and you'll find out. People hate it. I mean really hate it. Those who are familiar with the tree removal application are incensed that the city tree removal application asks about every tree on your property - what kind it is, where it's located, and how big it is, even though you just want to cut down one tree. They also require (unlimited) access to your property to check up on you. These things tic people off.
For the average property owner, the city tree code is an infringement of their property rights. Whose trees are they?! And whose yard? It becomes a real insult when the city claims rights over trees one planted themselves, or are dead or obviously a safety issue. I have not heard such a visceral dislike for any city regulation as the tree code, and today's discussion at the salon was no different. In fact, one person begged that the subject be changed because it was so upsetting.
When a city or other government or institution has a rule that is disliked and the public knows is unfair and immoral, it is predictable that there will be a high incidence of law-breaking and a general lack of respect for government. For years I have heard people talk about the ways they could kill a tree in order to remove it, or how they would remove it without asking for "permission" to do so. The only sticky part is the neighbor who takes it upon themselves to squeal to the city about unapproved tree cutting. How many neighborhood disputes and feuds have been created because of the tree code? Judging from my conversations, way too many! It's a pity, and it makes life in Lake Oswego unnecessarily unpleasant.
For people who are fearful that, if given the chance, everyone will go out and cut down all of their trees for reasons they don't approve of, the rules seem fine, or maybe even too tame. Would the city be denuded if the tree code was relaxed? That is a stupid but popular belief - totally unfounded by fact. At about 50% tree canopy cover, Lake Oswego has too many trees - many lots desperately need thinning to improve the health of the remaining trees and prevent forest fires.
This isn't a situation where property rights advocates are anti-trees - everyone loves their trees and many plant more trees than they remove. It's not the trees that are the problem, it's that we have a suffocating nanny state that substitutes its judgement for ours about how to take care of our own property.
What do you think? Tell your City Council. Maybe you'll see one of them in a barber shop where you can talk.
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make laws that are respectable.
Louis D. Brandeis
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Thoughts on the SWEA
What belongs in an Employment District?
That's kind of like asking, "Who's buried in Grant's tomb?" It's hard to take such an obvious question or the person asking it seriously.
"You're kidding, aren't you?"
"Well, no."
I attended a neighborhood association meeting Thursday night where a city planner came to talk to the group about what is going on with the planning effort for the Southwest Employment Area. I have been at almost all of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings, but I wanted to hear if anything had changed since the last meeing in August.
In previous posts I have discussed which business types have the most employees per square foot, which ones have the highest paid employees, and which types of land use result in highest property taxes. There are a couple of trifectas in the group, but the city needs to define its goals for the area before the planners and consultants put together their draft plan. Maybe the public can help with that. (Attend SAC meetings, participate at the upcoming Open House (date TBD), send your comments to the Planning Commission and the City Council.)
The bent nail in this board is the subject of putting housing in an employment district. Haing a place close by for people who work in the district to live is reasonable, but no part of LO is very far away so this reasoning falls flat.
How much commercial or mixed use should be allowed in the SWEA?
From METRO website:
Employment areas include a mix of employment uses. They may feature higher concentrations of office and retail businesses. Retail businesses in these areas primarily serve workers nearby. This distinguishes employment areas from neighborhood business districts and other commercial areas that serve both nearby residents and visitors.
Metro places some limits on types of retail uses cities and counties may allow in employment areas; its goal is to ensure these retail uses are appropriate in type and size to serve needs of businesses, employees and residents of these areas.
Housing doesn't employ very many people. In fact I can't think of any business other than self-storage that employees fewer people per acre. Housing does not qualify as employment in an employment district, so why is housing being considered?
The planner suggested that some day in the future there could be housing in the Kruse Way Employment District sprinkled among office buildings. Huh? I can't imagine that office workers or apartment dwellers would enjoy this arrangement. Just how urban are planners and real estate brokers and developers willing to take us?
A major rationale for combining employment, housing and retail in one area is to create a compact, walkable Transit Oriented Development (TOD). If one assumes Metro's Southwest Corridor high-capacity transit system ever comes to fruition and goes to Tualatin (Bridgeport is being discussed as a station), the SWEA could easily become a TOD with transit close by. And Kruse Way is just a skip over the freeway from the Tigard Triangle which will also be served by the SW Corridor transit line.
Due to limited lands, building capacity (height, square footage) will bs restricted since the bigger the building, the more parking is needed. Parking will still drive how intensely the land can be used.
Will light industrial still have a place in the district? Industrial land is the meat and potatoes of a town, but everyone goes for the dessert. What do you think should happen in the Emplpyment
District? It isn't so easy to answer is it? Unless you have your priorities set.
I can't wait to see how they plan to fund the district.
That's kind of like asking, "Who's buried in Grant's tomb?" It's hard to take such an obvious question or the person asking it seriously.
"You're kidding, aren't you?"
"Well, no."
I attended a neighborhood association meeting Thursday night where a city planner came to talk to the group about what is going on with the planning effort for the Southwest Employment Area. I have been at almost all of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings, but I wanted to hear if anything had changed since the last meeing in August.
In previous posts I have discussed which business types have the most employees per square foot, which ones have the highest paid employees, and which types of land use result in highest property taxes. There are a couple of trifectas in the group, but the city needs to define its goals for the area before the planners and consultants put together their draft plan. Maybe the public can help with that. (Attend SAC meetings, participate at the upcoming Open House (date TBD), send your comments to the Planning Commission and the City Council.)
The bent nail in this board is the subject of putting housing in an employment district. Haing a place close by for people who work in the district to live is reasonable, but no part of LO is very far away so this reasoning falls flat.
How much commercial or mixed use should be allowed in the SWEA?
From METRO website:
Employment areas include a mix of employment uses. They may feature higher concentrations of office and retail businesses. Retail businesses in these areas primarily serve workers nearby. This distinguishes employment areas from neighborhood business districts and other commercial areas that serve both nearby residents and visitors.
Metro places some limits on types of retail uses cities and counties may allow in employment areas; its goal is to ensure these retail uses are appropriate in type and size to serve needs of businesses, employees and residents of these areas.
Housing doesn't employ very many people. In fact I can't think of any business other than self-storage that employees fewer people per acre. Housing does not qualify as employment in an employment district, so why is housing being considered?
The planner suggested that some day in the future there could be housing in the Kruse Way Employment District sprinkled among office buildings. Huh? I can't imagine that office workers or apartment dwellers would enjoy this arrangement. Just how urban are planners and real estate brokers and developers willing to take us?
A major rationale for combining employment, housing and retail in one area is to create a compact, walkable Transit Oriented Development (TOD). If one assumes Metro's Southwest Corridor high-capacity transit system ever comes to fruition and goes to Tualatin (Bridgeport is being discussed as a station), the SWEA could easily become a TOD with transit close by. And Kruse Way is just a skip over the freeway from the Tigard Triangle which will also be served by the SW Corridor transit line.
Due to limited lands, building capacity (height, square footage) will bs restricted since the bigger the building, the more parking is needed. Parking will still drive how intensely the land can be used.
Will light industrial still have a place in the district? Industrial land is the meat and potatoes of a town, but everyone goes for the dessert. What do you think should happen in the Emplpyment
District? It isn't so easy to answer is it? Unless you have your priorities set.
I can't wait to see how they plan to fund the district.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Sixth Circuit Court expands WOTUS injunction to nation
On Friday, the injunction against the new Clean Water Act Rule, Waters The United States, was expanded to the entire nation. Oregon cannot and must not implement any of the new WOTUS regulations.
What does this mean for the citizens of Oregon and Lake Oswego?
Oregon is one of a group of respondant and intervenor states that support the new Rule, so it will be interesting, to See how each responds if the Rule is overturned in the U.S. Supreme Court. If Lake Oswego goes ahead with its new Storm Water Management Manual which is based on part on new State DEQ regulations, will it force unnecessary regulations on LO property owners? Will the City and State be liable for financial damages for implementing new rules when it had foreknowledge of the nationwide injunction?
However the Supreme Court eventually rules, will the City or State be liable for any property or financial damages that result from new stormwater systems that pose an added expense to property owners and/or fail to work as proscribed? The Stormwater Manual and other WOTUS-related regulations that are being evaluated have some serious issues to be resolved that most people won't know about until they have to deal with them, one by one.
At this point, Oregon and Lake Oswego can chose to put a hold on the new regulations or lessen their impact on property owners until all appeals are decided. But given recent history with the LOT
Water Treatment Plant project and the Wizer development, parties who are determined to see something happen rarely take heed of the trouble that may lie ahead. Elitist agendas continually take presecdence over public interests, and citizens are left to shoulder the burden, one by one.
The next time you go outside when it's raining, face heavenwards at the droplets coming down and say a prayer of thanks to the EPA, the Corp of Engineers, and the United States for bounty of all the Waters.of the United States without which you cannot live. Be careful where you put any water you brought in with you - proper disposition of all WOTUS might make you a walking nexus! Hooray!
enviro.blr.com
October 9, 2015
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stays WOTUS
Today, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Court) issued a stay nationwide against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) from enforcing the revised definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), also known as the Clean Water Rule.
This is a win for the 18 states that petitioned the Court that the Clean Water Rule went beyond the EPA and USACE’s regulatory jurisdiction and “altered the existing balance of federal-state collaboration.” The petitioners further contended that the new WOTUS definition was inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Riverside Bayview Homes, SWANCC, and Rapanos) and failed to conform to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. The stay will remain in place until further order from the court.
The Court held that the stay is proper and allows for “a more deliberate determination” as to whether WOTUS was a proper exercise of executive power enabled by Congress and federal law. Additionally, the Court acknowledge the states’ concern over cooperative federalism and their shared responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. The Court reasoned that a stay “temporarily silences the whirlwind of confusion” of WOTUS and whether the final rule can withstand legal challenges.
The stay parallels the recent decision by the District Court of North Dakota that preliminarily enjoined 13 states from complying with the new rule.
Read decision HERE.
What does this mean for the citizens of Oregon and Lake Oswego?
Oregon is one of a group of respondant and intervenor states that support the new Rule, so it will be interesting, to See how each responds if the Rule is overturned in the U.S. Supreme Court. If Lake Oswego goes ahead with its new Storm Water Management Manual which is based on part on new State DEQ regulations, will it force unnecessary regulations on LO property owners? Will the City and State be liable for financial damages for implementing new rules when it had foreknowledge of the nationwide injunction?
However the Supreme Court eventually rules, will the City or State be liable for any property or financial damages that result from new stormwater systems that pose an added expense to property owners and/or fail to work as proscribed? The Stormwater Manual and other WOTUS-related regulations that are being evaluated have some serious issues to be resolved that most people won't know about until they have to deal with them, one by one.
At this point, Oregon and Lake Oswego can chose to put a hold on the new regulations or lessen their impact on property owners until all appeals are decided. But given recent history with the LOT
Water Treatment Plant project and the Wizer development, parties who are determined to see something happen rarely take heed of the trouble that may lie ahead. Elitist agendas continually take presecdence over public interests, and citizens are left to shoulder the burden, one by one.
The next time you go outside when it's raining, face heavenwards at the droplets coming down and say a prayer of thanks to the EPA, the Corp of Engineers, and the United States for bounty of all the Waters.of the United States without which you cannot live. Be careful where you put any water you brought in with you - proper disposition of all WOTUS might make you a walking nexus! Hooray!
October 9, 2015
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stays WOTUS
Today, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Court) issued a stay nationwide against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) from enforcing the revised definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), also known as the Clean Water Rule.
This is a win for the 18 states that petitioned the Court that the Clean Water Rule went beyond the EPA and USACE’s regulatory jurisdiction and “altered the existing balance of federal-state collaboration.” The petitioners further contended that the new WOTUS definition was inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Riverside Bayview Homes, SWANCC, and Rapanos) and failed to conform to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. The stay will remain in place until further order from the court.
The Court held that the stay is proper and allows for “a more deliberate determination” as to whether WOTUS was a proper exercise of executive power enabled by Congress and federal law. Additionally, the Court acknowledge the states’ concern over cooperative federalism and their shared responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. The Court reasoned that a stay “temporarily silences the whirlwind of confusion” of WOTUS and whether the final rule can withstand legal challenges.
The stay parallels the recent decision by the District Court of North Dakota that preliminarily enjoined 13 states from complying with the new rule.
Read decision HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)