(Who is guiding whom?)
At the City Council meeting last night (4/7/2015), the Council approved a list of 8 policy-related goals for the year. The policies reflected here will be used "in guiding the work of both the City Council and staff".
Below are my comments regarding the list.
1. Neighborhood Livability: "to preserve the character of existing established residential neighborhoods". The goal does not address neighborhood character. "Character" is a word that is verboten in City Hall these days because it is subjective - not to the residents of a neighborhood who can explain very clearly and objectively what elements make up the character of their neighborhood - but to the planning staff and developers who hate the term because it doesn't allow them build what they want. Even though neighborhood character, values and livability are encoded in Neighborhood Plans (approved by city councils), the new policy brings the issue back to Council to decide what parts of "neighborhood livability" will be preserved or sacrificed. Forget character.
2. Preservation of Assets
3. Annexation: The policy calls for "friendly annexation" of residential areas, but unlike councils of the past that extended this policy to industrial/commercial areas as well, this policy takes a different tack. "The City, however, take an active role in the annexation of developed commercial and industrial property within Lake Oswego's urban service area". Would eminent domaine be used to grab land for private development, or just grab properties that would fatten up the property tax base? I need an explanation for this one.
4. Economic Development: Development should "build the city's property tax base, provide jobs for Lake Oswego residents…" Worthy goals, but in the Southwest Employment Area, the two newest businesses are a self-storage facility and Goodwill. The storage facility will employ how many people? And as a warehouse, how valuable will the property be? Similar story for Goodwill, but on a bit higher scale. This is really not worth the effort of a grand plan for the small industrial area if this is what we get.
"Reducing regulatory barriers" "without sacrificing community aesthetics" -- translation: build to the maximum density, and only the staff will be able to decide if anything meets code, no more citizen input or Development Review process. Do you trust your planners? Even the City Council will not have the power to change things.
5. New Fees and Taxes; Debt: This one is fun. New fees or taxes will have to be dedicated to a specific purpose. Since public funds are fungible, the new income will only replace other general fund dollars and allow for more spending wherever it is wanted. A limit on debt excluding voter-approved general obligation bonds is only good if the debt is low enough and wisely to persuade voters their money is being spent for necessities.
6. Property Rights
7. Objective Development Standards and Community Involvement: This would take a book. I do not agree that the only way to meet state requirements for clear and objective housing standards is to remove the development review commission and citizen input from the process. Making permit approval subject only to planners' ministerial approval is wrong and we should not be following this path - it will not go well.
8. Sustainability: What can I say. This is a regurgitation of the United Nations definition of sustainability that everyone uses these days. It makes me wonder if anyone thinks for themselves these days. What does sustainability mean for Lake Oswego? This word is used so liberally, its true meaning is lost, but by gosh, we all have to have it in there somewhere! Way to go!
No comments:
Post a Comment