Uh-Oh. Junior is grounded while Mom & Dad talk

The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) is deciding what to do with rebellious Damascus - the little town that dared to defy the rules. Metro couldn't handle Damascus' independent streak, so the problem was handed to the state for enforcement.  Now LCDC has to do something to demonstrate they mean what they say.

In an August (19, updated on 20th) Oregonian article, the LCDC was frustrated because there was little they could do to punish Damascus.

**************************************

"The Land Conservation and Development Commission told Damascus officials that if they don't pass a comprehensive plan by Aug. 31, the city will be in trouble. It's unlikely the city will pass a plan anytime soon, but the state agency can't really do much about it.

The Commission will meet Friday, Sept. 27, in Salem to discuss how it will punish Damascus. By law, it has only three options: withhold state tax revenues, limit building permits or take the city to court.
The city doesn't issue building permits and, because of its own city charter, can't spend state-shared revenues.

"I've been very frustrated. It's not much of an enforcement," said Jennifer Donnelly, the regional representative for the Department of Land Conservation and Development."

*****************************************

Now the State needs to figure out what to do with Damascus.  With limited options, what punishment will LCDC come up with, and how will Damascus respond?

The two interesting things about this story are:
1).   If an entity is willing to forego the money they get from the higher-ups, it is very hard to influence them on what to do.
2).   The citizens of Damascus vote on their Comprehensive Plans.  Now that the voters have decided to keep Damascus an incorporated city, the council has created several comp plans for the citizens to look at and vote on.

Money controls just about everything.  Once someone (or a city) becomes accustomed to receiving money from a source, they become dependent on it and will do just about anything to keep the supply coming, no matter how outrageous or absurd the demands are.  The state takes our money, and in order to get it back, the city has to spend money just to ask for it,  And then the city has to use more of our money to do whatever it is their way.  Of course, we pay for all of theCentral Planners who make up the rules too - kind of like signing our own death warrant. That's how top-down control works.

Direct Democracy can get messy, but it does sound intriguing -- that all citizens are involved rather than the few who are knowledgable about land use or those who have an agenda.  And the elected officials would have to explain why they favored one thing over another.  How many other cities vote  every 10 - 20 years to determine how they want their city to evolve?