Up Sucker Creek

Up Sucker Creek
Photo Courtesy of the Lake Oswego Library

Sunday, October 6, 2013

We Need More Courage.

The Lake Oswego Review ran an opinion piece (excerpt below) this last week about the proposal for the Wizer Block and other commercial districts in town.  His last paragraph says it all for me.  LO is (or was) unique: That special small town feel at the edge of a large metropolitan city.

Some factions in town - some who live here, and some who just work here - feel that it can and should be more than that.  "Vibrant" is the word I hear most often.   Who needs vibrant when you have all this peace and beauty?  Some people don't know when to leave good enough alone.  For the people who want a more "vibrant" and "walkable" city, might I suggest Portland?

PS:  Some people already see the writing on the wall and are moving out.  Future generations won't know what we had unless we preserve it NOW!  We don't have any time left to be complacent.

"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?"
--  Joni Mitchell

'Be prepared for a future you may not enjoy'


While many towns have succumbed to the assault of the urban density Taliban, with their love of high-rise development, notably some, such as Sausalito, Calif., have with great courage steadfastly refused. They remain as unique and highly sought outposts in a sea of insoluble congestion. If you want to influence the path of this runaway train, I suggest you make your voice heard by the city council. Otherwise, be prepared for a future you may not enjoy.

Other readers' letters from the same paper:

Downtown plans seem short-sighted, should be rejected
The planned development for a 228-unit apartment building in the core of Lake Oswego seems to me to be ill-conceived and inappropriate.   --  Gina Almquist Coshow


‘Why are we selling out on our lovely little downtown and park?’
Now, city council is advancing a massive five-story development next to Millennium Plaza Park with 228 apartments, including up to 150 or more dogs, by exempting Lake Oswego’s current community development code, chapter 50.   --  Leslie Pirrotta






3 comments:

  1. The future will contain a lot more of these types of projects. Read the draft of the Comp Plan on Housing. A 25% increase in L.O. population by 2035 and Metro using Oregon law and administrative code demands we build to accommodate it. Watch Lake Grove as it is "targeted" to be the next "dense" housing place to allow L.O. to meet its' goals as established by Metro!
    The Plan also requires what is now called "attainable housing" previously known as affordable housing. The City may need to support this housing from its own budget if federal and or state money is not available.
    This is all figured out by Metro and told to us! It apparently is NOT optional. The new urbanists have got us tied up and they will now tell us what we are to do. Wow!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow! Is right. I had not heard the new term "attainable" being used for "affordable" - as is so often the case, change agents change their language when words or terms become too hot and the public starts to catch on. This is a fight I don't want to lose, so the Comp Plan and more importantly, the
    Community Development Codes are crucial. They have been written and controlled by the planning staff for years now and that is why we are in the mess we're in. The New Urbanism religion permeates most of government and especially the unelected staff who are steeped in theories of Utopian design and control, not real people and liberty. Let me know if you have any ideas how to stop this train wreck.

    Read about Westchester County and their battles with HUD.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gerry, uncertain to what degree you've been involved in land use matters over the last 25 years here in Lake Oswego.
    Much of what you share is old news for those of us who have been in the trenches; however, some of what you note is not quite accurate.

    "We" may be required to zone lands so that the projected growth can be accommodated; however, we to say the "administrative code demands we build to accommodate it" is not accurate.

    This is where a responsible Council is critical. However, when, the current Council majority-especially Studebaker and Bowerman-favor individual "property rights" over community livability, there's a problem.

    Also, in regard to Low-Income aka Affordable aka Attainable Housing, it is not accurate that "The City may need to support this housing from its own budget if federal or state money is not available". However, it has been discussed that a portion of Urban Renewal dollars be specifically dedicated for such forms of housing.
    And, actually, in the not too distant past, there was a City appointed "Affordable Housing Task Force"...Uncertain how many citizens were aware of their actions/recommendations.

    ReplyDelete