2016 City Council goals

What does the City Council want for 

Lake Oswego in 2016? 

What about you?  What does the city need, and what can you live without?

Since the list of 2016 Council Goals has not been finalized, it remains an open question as to how meaningful their final draft will be.  Following the goal-setting workshop last week, the list looks more like a grocery shopping list or Christmas wish list.  Instead of 10 or 12 focused goals, there are currently 33 - a mind-numbing prospect for any town.  The Council looks like a snake that swallowed a porcupine.

The major gap in this list is how the City Council plans to economize and lessen the tax, fee and debt burden on citizens.  The majority of the city budget is spent on employee salaries, benefits, and PERS retirement contributions.  Even I f nothing is done - no new hires and no staff cuts - in one year the additional rate increases for PERS will be equivilant to 11 FTE.  Succeeding years will only add to that number.  It is nice that PERS made the list, though there is no mention of cutting staff.  To be fair, a lot of items on this list were voted down by a majority of Council members.  A hot button issue for residents is lowering the height limit for downtown development; The goal did not receive any votes from Council.

A side note: As more money pours into urban renewal districts from what should be our biggest source of general fund revenue (commercial development), our ability to keep up with even essential city spending is negatively impacted.  Tax Increment Funding (TIF) may be sold as a painless way to fund development (think North Anchor, improving the appearance of downtown alleys, a new parking lot for the Trolly, etc.), the cost is at the expense of current and future city services.

The City Council will finalize their list at their next meeting.

"Government spending is taxation."

-- Arthur Laffer

Mean 2016 POSSIBLE COUNCIL GOALS (for discussion purposes only) 
5.0 Complete North Anchor Development Agreement
4.9 Complete Final Design for Boones Ferry Project
4.9 New Home for Arts Council (and Gallery)
4.6 Break Ground on Operations Center
4.6 Reduce Unfunded Streets Backlog
4.3 Break Ground on Police/LOCOM Building
4.3 Continue "Dig Once" Policy
4.3 Strategy for Dealing with PERS increase
4.0 Development Code Streamlining
4.0 Adopt Tree Code Amendments
3.6 Explore Possible Incentives to Encourage Remodeling and Discourage Tear-downs
3.4 Complete Major Repairs on the Exterior Walls and Windows of City Hall
3.4 Provide Funding for Ped/Bike Connections
3.4 Improve Downtown Alleys (LORA)
3.3 Explore LIDs for Sidewalk/Path Projects, with Possible Matching Funds from City
3.3 Work with LOSD on Permanent Home for Parks and Rec
3.3 Proceed More Quickly on Urban Renewal Projects
3.1 Explore Opportunities for Mountain Bike Trails
3.1 Accelerate Surface Water Improvements
3.1 Upgrade ACC
3.0 Consider Fiber Broadband Utility (Subject to Feasibility)
3.0 Create Youth Advisory Council
3.0 Work with LOSD on Community Pool Options
2.9 Make Community Forums More Broadly Accessible (Child Care, Access by Transit)
2.7 Community Facility (Library Services, Rec Programming & Meeting Rooms, Police Office) in Lake Grove 
2.7 Make Progress on Willamette Shoreline Trail
2.7 Make Things Easier to Find on the City Website
2.7 Develop Visitor/Tourism Strategy
2.6 Consider Annexation Strategies
2.4 Fully Fund Position of Sustainability Coordinator/Director
2.1 Consider Options for Dealing with Nuisances - Leaf Blowers, Security Lights, Train Whistles
2.0 Consider (Future) Council Compensation
1.0 Consider Reducing Height Limit Downtown 

Save Lake Oswego - again!

How rattled are the masses?

VERY!

How disrespected, ignored, disenfranchised, delegitimized, and 

marginalized are average citizens?

EXTREMELY!

You heard about it with the streetcar that only a developer could love, until citizens rose up and the Council put it on hold (but not yet forgotten) in 2012.

Ten percent or more of the population were outraged about unwarranted limits on their land use because of Sensitive Lands regulations (that no City Councilor or Mayor has had to deal with).

The Wizer Megablock development pit the background and experience of the DRC against the City Council and the neighbors went to court.

Average citizens have been fighting various land use plans, changing city codes, density and urbanization, city debt and the remarkable insensitivity of City Hall for some time, with no end in sight.

What's next?  Plenty.  2016 will be another watershed year for changes to the city.  Don't expect to see new building just yet - the city is currently laying the groundwork for the development they expect (and want) to come.

One of the most recent dominoes to fall is in the Rosewood neighborhood.  Residents have taken a stand against plans for increased development in the SW Employment Area that does not protect the livability of their neighborhood.  Their new website, 

SaveLakeOswego.com, 

presents their case about increasing semi-truck traffic on residential roads.  Increasing development has also brought major issues of stormwater flooding their hards, basements and septic systems.

While many annexations have taken place over the years as development closes in on the few remaining large lots in the UGB, most of the Rosewood area is still part of the County.  Lakeview Blvd. is in the city, but the residential land to the south is not.  If it is difficult for other neighborhoods to get respect from the city, it is impossible for Rosewood to get attention for what must be major code and environmental violations.  Semi-trucks and sewage in the streets?  More intense development coming?  More auto traffic taking shortcuts through quiet neighborhood streets?  Parking for employees? Noise?

Hey!  Maybe the developers and politicians want to build some ised use and move in.  I know of a real estate broker in the area who will entertain offers for his land ... (he no longer lives in LO, he moved to Camas).

Visit the website - sign the petition.  "Speak out now and help us block this love fest between the city and developers.  Lake Oswego is our home and only we can protect it."

2050

This series from the WSJ presents a fascinating look into the future.  You may be surprised at the information - it will definitely make you think.

These are the thoughts that keep me up at night:

• In preparation for a narrow vision of the future, will we toss our national identity - our liberties and individualism - to require people to conform to a common (communal) society?  Will we accept tyranny as necessary in a piece-by-piece erosion of our rights?  

Wall Street Nournal, November 22, 2015

2050

Demographic Destiny

The year 2050 is right around the corner, 

and yet it is hard to imagine the sweeping 

changes the world will confront by then.  In 

a multimedia series, The Wall Street 

Journal helps readers envision how we will 

work, how we will age, and how we will live.

Streamlining the land development process

What is the city's "Code Streamlining" project all about?

To answer that question, you have to go back at least 15 years.  Where were you and what were you doing in 2010-2012?   Were you aware of what was going on in the city back then?  Many of us do, but many more do not.  If you weren't around back then, or if you weren't paying attention to the minitue of code development, it is important to understand that Code Streamlining was originally called: Removing Barriers to Mixed Use.  Perhaps that term was too descriptive and made the public uneasy, but the project is now called renamed Code Streamlining.  Same project, same outcome, just new name. Let's make mixed use easier for the developer to build!  ;-)

Code Streamlining is being presented as an effort to "clean up" the codes and make them "clear."  I have nothing against organization and clarification, it's what and how that I am interested in.   Code changes are often called "housekeeping amendments," so it's a constant guessing game as to which ones apply to increased density and mixed use.   Why do we want mixed use so bad anyway?  (That's another story.)   Here is what to look for:

• Changes to land uses within zones relating to commercial development and residential infill
• Increasing density (up-zoning) by any means - by creating new housing types and calling it something other than multi-family like "multi-dwelling development" 
• Reduction of setbacks and landscaping, increasing lot coverage, and reducing parking - sometimes offered as bonuses for adding dense housing to a mixed use project. 
• Reduction or elimination of buffered areas that separate commercial and residential uses
• Increasing building dimensions to maximize volume
• Decreasing required facade breaks that cost the developer more 
• Separating the requirement to build sidewalks and street improvements from the development
• Lessening the requirement for open space to just a landscape strip along the street
• The city might build a new park, parking lot or garage, recreation facilities, public space, or even an internet service to add amenities to entice new development - especially those things that make it less expensive to build here
• Land speculation when there is no perceived demand
• Holding public hearings on land use issues (arcane code changes) without adequate involvement by the public beforehand
• A new area plan or urban renewal area is being considered, consultants are hired, etc. 
• You feel it in your gut - something is amiss, but no one is talking about it and you can't get a straight answer.  Officials can't describe the city's planning goals, and no one in the planning department will describe their end game plan.  

All of the above have, or are in the midst of being done.

In case you forgot (I blogged about this before), there is a sequence to bringing mixed use to a city.
1.  Start with a land use study for an area
2.  Start to implement the plan by changing codes, changing land uses within zones, etc. to make it easier, less expensive, faster and less risky to develop the land.
3.  Create a funding mechanism - usually an urban renewal area- to give incentives to developers (corporate welfare)

To review the purpose and plans for Code Streamlining / Removing Barriers to Mixed Use Development, read the documents on this city webpage: 

http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/planning/phase-2-code-streamlining-and-updates-open-house

PHASE 2 CODE STREAMLINING and UPDATES OPEN HOUSE
On December 13, 2012, the City hosted a public open house to provide information about draft code concepts for streamlining commercial zoning land use standards and removing barriers to mixed use development in these zones.  The materials that were presented at the open house are posted below.

Lake Oswego is referenced in a legal research library --
Pace Law School Library: Research Guides

Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Legal Research Guide:           Streamlining the Land Development Process

This research guide contains links to primary and secondary sources useful in the study of land use, planning, and zoning law. Also included are pages focused on special topics in land use law.

Other Communities:

• Oregon- Lake Oswego Phase 2 Code Streamlining and Updates Open House
  

  Website for the Lake Oswego City's "draft code concepts for streamlining commercial zoning land use standards and removing barriers to mixed use development in these zones."

  
  That about says it all.  The code changes being undertaken are less concerned about the livability of the city for residents, or even what the citizens might want for the future of Lake Oswego.  But until the Planning Department comes clean about what their version of a compact urban form (Smart Growth) is and how it translates to our physical landscape, we are on our own to research and struggle to find answers.  

  
  

Get out your megaphone

SPEAK UP!  

THEY CAN'T HEAR YOU! 

I think I am one of those "loud voices" City Councilor Joe Buck referred to on Monday when the Council met with the Planning Commission to discuss their 2016 goals.  He wanted to make sure the  Planning Commission was listening to all citizens, not just the "loud voices".  I wondered if that was me - along with many others.   We put hours and hours of research and thought into our testimony, and contribute to discussions on important topics.  I hope he values what we have to offer.

Where are all the other citizens?  Where are all of the movers and shakers who come out at election time to support their candidates, and then fade away?  And the others who are home, working hard, raising kids, trying to juggle multiple demands, paying the bills...  If the City is interested in hearing from the public they can figure out a way to make it happen.  Who's fault is it if the political scene is complicated, arcane, overwhelming, intimidating, time consuming, and not very welcoming.  My neighbors and friends are not eager to get involved in the chaos unless there's an immediate problem, so they are happy that I speak for them.

Loud?  If being loud means willing to speak up, that's me - but I prefer to call it being an "engaged" citizen.  Now is your chance to be engaged.  If you have never been to a Council or Planning Commission meeting or it's been awhile, bring a friend.  If the meeting is dull or ends early, go out with your friend after, then read all about it in the paper on Thursday!  It could be fun.

Data-driven decisions smarter

The high cost of stupidity

Econ 101: Prices are controlled by supply and demand.  When supply is low and demand is high, prices go up.  When there is abundant supply but little demand, prices go down.

Everyone agrees that the cost of housing in Portland is high and going higher.  Portland is a popular place to live.  The number of people moving into the region increases the demand for housing, and at the same time, the urban growth boundary restricts supply.  It's a perfect storm of escalating unaffordability.  Most politicians and the public refuse to acknowledge that the UGB is the number one cause of high housing prices throughout the country. The UGB stops sprawl and is a good thing, right?

And now there is a housing crisis that has politicians stumped.  The quick and easy government "solutions" (rent control, inclusionary zoning, increased density, etc.) that have been tried here and in other cities have not produced reliable solutions, and most have made things worse.

For a clear-eyed look at the state of housing costs and land use policies in the Metro area, read the following report by  Gerard Mildner PhD., Academic Director of The Center for Real Estate at Portland State University.  The report was published in the Center for Real Estate Quarterly, Fall 2015, titled: "The Gentrification Plan for Metro Portland".   This is not the political propaganda Metro "experts" put out - it is a well-researched set of metrics every citizen should read and know.  Politicians especially should have a working knowledge of the facts that drive the policies and decisions they make.  The report may change beliefs about our housing affordability and what can be done, or not done, to make things better.

On the same Center for Real Estate Quarterly, see two of Gerald Mildner's other reports:  "Density at 
Any Cost", November 2014; and "Density at Any Cost, Revisited", February 2015.

Excerpts:

"Public housing authorities would serve their clients better by issuing housing vouchers that would allow their clients to shop for existing homes and apartments closer to their preferred location."

Precisely what I have been saying!  Will public housing authorities do good for their constituency, or will they continue to do well for themselves?   

"An important conclusion from the urban economics and the housing economics literature is that high density development is more costly to build and provides fewer consumer amenities."

When planners and politicians talk about high density apartments being the solution to housing affordability, it is clear they don't understand anything at all about real-world economics.  It's as if they heard something somewhere and accepted it as fact, even though it is exactly wrong.  

Educate yourself, then vote accordingly.

City Council goals for 2016

I was not able to get to the City Council's Open House last night to tell council members what I thought they ought to be focusing on in 2016.  The Council will meet Saturday at Marylhurst to hash out their list of goals for the year.  The workshop is open to the public, but only for observation - no public comments will be allowed.

I will email my suggestions to the Council on Friday - here is my unedited list:

Suggestions for Council Goals for 2016: 
Simplify

1. Establish a clear list of core city services and prioritize into 3 tiers. The services that are absolutely essential to the functions of the city - the items we can't do without (fire, police, water, roads, etc), are Tier 1.  Tier 2 are services related to livability (parks, library, ACC, bike paths).  Tier 3 is for the nice-to-haves (alternative energy, grants to groups to improve private property).  Tie the list to the city budget.
2. Create a budget that covers Tier 1 and Tier 2 services.  This list would not include side agendas that cost taxpayers money but are not essential, such as the purchase of more expensive alternative energy because "it's the right thing to do."   Look for ways to simplify, reduce or eliminate functions within each category and reduce the number of public employees.   Citizens are heavily burdened with city fees; seek ways to lessen this load now.
3. Request proposals for city services that can be outsourced.  Just about every job in the city falls into this category.  Think big!  How much money can be saved? 
4. Preserve the livability of residential neighborhoods.  Review and revise development codes so that new development is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.  Consider applying the building size formula used for flag lots to all new residential development, and create codes for transition areas where commercial uses abuts residential property.
5. Prioritize citizen needs and livability above the demands of developers, Metro, city beauracracy and commercial interests.
6. Reject municipal broadband and any plan where the city competes with private entities for business.  The City is not a business.  Creating business ventures and new "utilities" is not a core service.  It is risky, it undermines the free market, it is not needed, it will increase staff and require all citizens to pay for it, etc.  (Put Urban Renewal into this category also.)  
7. Reform the way advisory committees are chosen.  Disallow people serving in city boards and commissions to serve on SAC or CAC committees. Members of the Planning Commission, City Council have opportunities to weigh in on land use issues and policy decisions and should not have an additional voice in SACS.  Establish a process for soliciting and selecting advisory committees members.  Get input from the Commission for Citizen Involvement and citizens at large. Too often advisory committee members have been solicited by city staff, and average citizens rightly feel left out of the process.  Example: have an ongoing, rotating list of names of citizens wanting to serve on advisory committees, and let about half the committee come from the list. The City needs new/more voices to be heard.  Staff should not solicit names for the list or choose from among them.
8. Establish a code of ethics for the City Council, members of boards and commissions, stakeholder advisory committees and staff regarding conflicts of interest and conduct in general.  There needs to be guidelines that define what kinds of behavior and interests are not acceptable and reinforce the fiduciary responsibilities of public bodies.
9. Understand the purpose of code streamlining and most land use plans (to facilitate smart growth, increase density and mixed-use development) and establish priorities for development independent of city staff in order to better guide them.  Note: Code streamlining will change the land use within each zone which will have the same effect as changing the zones - but just not calling it a zone change.  If we don't do Euclidian Zoning anymore, what does that mean for our city? What do citizens want for their city?
10. Require staff to provide both pros and cons of plans and projects to the Planning Commission and City Council, and to the public.  Too often we all get a slanted picture of issues that colors our opinions and choices.  Getting all of the information is crucial to making an intelligent, informed decision.  To better inform the Council about citizen wishes, conduct an annual (professional) survey on current issues. 

I Will try to winnow this list to 1 page for the Council.  "Simplify" is my resolution for 2016!  

Behind the pitch for broadband

Three Cheers for Cheap, Municipal Broadband in 

Lake Oswego!  

How does one argue with idiots?  Let me try.

New service will bring gigabit Internet speeds to every Lake Oswego household.
Did you ever think about HOW this was going to happen?  No?  After the euphoria fades, there is the practical matter of how to get all this fiber to every homes,

up hills, down hills, all around the town - covering 10.68 square miles of land area.  A contractor can't dig up and repair all of the streets to put in new wire and be cost effective.  The only option is to put the wires above ground.  This runs counter to our city codes regarding placement of new utilities.  Even if the city gets to ignore the codes, it is a bad idea.  There is a reason for under-grounding utilities, and this project would push  progress back to pre-1960s development standards.  Has anyone calculated the repair and upkeep of poles and transmission wires over time?

READ: If Power Lines Fall, Why Don't They Go Underground?  NPR. 2/1/2012

Municipal broadband will be better and significantly cheaper than existing commercial internet options.  
Commercial service would be cheaper too if some of the administrative and personnel costs were borne by the consumer.  A city-owner broadband service would require six NEW city employees.  This will cost each household $10/month whether or not they use the Internet service, and users will pay that also, just not as part of their internet utility bill.  Here is what Scott Lazenby is suggesting:  People who buy the new service would pay more than they thought, and would be subsidized by the rest of the city since there would be a need to grow his administration at city hall.  It's a shell game of a deal, and if a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

 

Lake Oswego needs a gigabit internet system, and a survey will show this.
Wants or needs?  Depending upon how survey questions are phrased, and especially if the public does not know all of the facts (risks and real expense to everyone), respondents may be answering the questions as if the question is only what they want not need, and not what they would have the city do in the real world.  Fantasy is so much easier to say yes to than reality.

What is need?  Unlike small towns in isolated regions, the Portland Metro area has multiple options of internet providers.  Some already offer gig service.  Some offer slower service at lower prices and higher prices for faster speeds, with other providers offer a variety of plans in between.  Faster?

Read:  The National Broadband Map

Lake Oswego only needs 35% of city residents to subscribe to make a new system self-sustainable.
We already know that this isn't true no matter whow many people subscribe. (Read above.)  But City Manager, Scott Lazenby, is quoted in the Lake Oswego Review as saying they might be able to get by with 30% at first.  It sounds like it is he who really wants this and will adjust his own estimates to make it work.  Plus, comparing the Lake Oswego market to Sandy's is not reasonable.  A reasonable manager would get a qualified consultant to do a market study on the feasibility of such a huge undertaking.  To date, I have not heard of such a study.  (Is there one?)  Lazenby is asking the Council to approve the project with only a shaky survey to guide them.

There is every reason to believe that LO could wind up becoming another Provo, Utah.  And Provo, is not the only city to have waded into this swamp and is now paying dearly for their foolishness.  These cities listened to the snake oil salesman, choosing fantasy over common sense.

Read: Google Paying $1 for $39 Million For Fiber Service in Utah, Huffington Post, 6/19/2013

Even when citizens have expressed no desire for it, approving municipal broadband demonstrates
leadership.
According to the LO Review, this is the logic of Councilor Joe Buck.  I wonder if he would feel the same if the City Manager came to the Council with a plan to build a municipal restaurant where great meals could be had for a very low, sustainable price?  A restranteur  would provide the service  (at a profit to him), and the city would lease it - residents would pay only half the retail.  Competing with private, for-profit businesses is not the role of the city and is not a core service.  As other cities have learned, it may not even be doable.

It is not very cool to pile on costs to live in a city where people can't afford to live now.  Contrary to some peoples' beliefs,  (some in City Hall)  everyone is LO is not rich nor can they afford everything City Hall or the Council dreams up. The utility costs we have now are crushing.  Even if they could, it is not the City's right to spend our hard-earned money for us on discretionary stuff the city doesn't need.  Approving non-essential projects that aren't needed isn't leadership - it is self-indulgent folly.

Read: Survey to gauge public'sinterest in city-owned fiber network, Lake Oswego Review, 12/31/2015

A municipal broadband service will interfere with the free market, but public ownership of goods and services is best for the common good.
Actually, this is not something anyone (except Jeff Gudman) is talking about, but this is the philosophy The City Manager and City Council are buying into with discussion of a city-owned internet service. Capitalism,  competition, responds to the demands of the consumer.  After a contract is signed, what does the end consumer have to say?

This isn't capitalism.  Let's call it Command Economics.  What happens when "profit" estimates aren't what they should be?  If customers decide the municipal option isn't what they want, they will still  have to pay for the failed system.  Remember when Mayor Studabaker tried to get the city out of the LOT Water Partnership contract?  A breach of contract suit would have buried the city in more debt.  Once an agreement is signed for a broadband service, there is no way out that doesn't cost a fortune.  This is not a risk the City Council should take for something that is not necessary.  Has anyone learned from past mistakes?

***

Tuesday, January 26, the City Council will study the issue of a publicly-owned fiber network.  Will they get all the facts they need to make an educated decision?  Don't wait.  Let the City Council know what you think NOW! 

The Review said everyone on the council except Jeff Gudman wanted to go forward with the survey and a possible city broadband service.  Six others need persuading that the reason no one is clambering for new services, and are not engaged with the City Concil because we assume things will go along the same as they are unless there is a crisis or need for a change?.mmonly a handful follow city politics to discern what is going on before the $#*++  hits the fan.   Most citizens do not want much from the city - just for essential municipal services to work.

"Restraint in the face of temptation is a virtue."

-- Up Sucker Creek

Controling the growth of bureaucracy

City governments may start out small and lean, but over time, bureaucracy takes over and takes on  a life of its own, apart from the communities they serve.

What are the incentives at work that encourage the growth of government bureaucracy?  You will recognize the truth of the theories discussed below.  What can be done to control and limit government bureaucracy to meet our community's needs?

The Mathematics of Bureaucracy
THOMASNET.COM
By jfontelera, January 20, 2009

Although he saw many advantages for this arrangement, Weber (German sociologist Max 
Weber, 1947) also believed that in practice, it (bureaucracy) could become an "iron cage" for employees who are bogged down with excessive controls. He also lamented that bureaucracies will become an end in and of itself and will ultimately cease serving society, the IEEE Computer Society paper states.

Weber's criticism of bureaucracy is probably closer to how many people see it today. John Pourdehnad, management consultant and educator, agrees with Weber's criticism, writing on his blog that a bureaucracy "takes steps to preserve itself: It makes work and introduces red tape, and it imposes nonfunctional requirements on others, which 'justify' the made work."

Pourdehnad also adds that because people are being promoted based on seniority rather than merit, the bureaucratic organization continues to grow uncontrollably. "Since performance is not critical for survival, size is. ...Therefore, growth becomes an objective because it is an efficient way to secure survival," he argues.

Parkinson's Law, theorized by C. Northcote Parkinson, a British Royal Navy historian and author, explains this phenomenon by stating that "work expands to fill the time available for its completion" and in bureaucratic organizations, the number of people required to do the work will continually rise whether the actual volume of work stays the same, increases, decreases or disappears. (Source: New Scientist)

According to Parkinson, this occurs because workers want to multiply subordinates, not rivals, and make work for each other. For example, an overworked employee wants to diminish the amount of work he has to do. He can either: 1) resign, 2) halve the work with a colleague of equal standing in the company or 3) hire two junior employees to work under him.

The first option leaves him jobless, and the second brings a potential rival for a promotion. The third option is the only one that allows him to keep his standing in the company while allowing him to do less. It is also important to note that he requires two subordinates, because if only one were hired, he'd potentially end up with a rival again.

Inevitably, says Parkinson, the two subordinates will feel overworked and will want to hire people (two for each) to work below them. Now the organization has seven people doing the work that one person used to do — not exactly the model of efficiency Weber hoped for. In mathematical form, Parkinson's Law follows the formula:

x = 2km + p

n

Note: The article also discusses what the maximum number of committee members is before a committee becomes disorganized and disfunctional.   

On Monday the forecast is iffy

We're in the countdown days to Christmas, and if you don't have anything better to do, I have just the thing to fill you time!

In preparation for the Planning Commission Public Hearing on Nov. 26, and up until yesterday, I spent countless hours pouring through EPA, State DEQ and City permits and regulations regarding stormwater management.  Now that's some FUN!   You ought to try it.

I did this because I was having trouble with what the Engineering Department was telling the Planning Commission, and I had questions about their new Stormwater Management Manual.  I didn't like what I saw, so I (along with countless others) wanted to know: What are the minimum regulations the City has to comply with?  This should be simple for the experts who deal with this stuff every day, but since an answer from Staff was elusive, someone had to figure it out.  The following is a smidgen of the research I did.  If I made any errors, please let me know!  Accuracy is extremely important.

The Planning Commission will be deliberating their recommendations to the City Council at their meeting on Monday night (December 14), starting at 5:30 pm.  The meeting will be in City Hall, broadcast live on Tualatin Valley Cable TV, and streaming live online.  Do the Commisioners have all of the information they need to do their job?  What questions might they have, and will they be answered clearly and thoroughly?

Here is a brief summary of what I learned:

1.   The City has been using the proposed, but never approved, stormwater regulations for new development for some time.  How does that work?  Can they just tell builders what they have to do, even though there are no codes to support it yet?  Wow.  Even if they are that confident, that is putting the cart way before the horse.  But what choice do builders have but to do as they are told?

2.  Finding all of the intersecting rules from several agencies and multiple documents was the most difficult part of getting answers to what the minimum requirements were.  Even those posted on the City's website can be hard to find because they are spread across several webpages.

3.  Staff told the Planning Commission, aka Commission for Citizen Involvement, that citizen involvement in creating the Stormwater Management Manual was not possible because the information was too technical and couldn't be changed anyway, but they would undertake to educate us instead.  At first blush, this sounded reasonable, until I started reading the background documents and realized this was not true.  The main policy issues are not at all technical, and they can be changed.  The public should definitely be involved in determining what course of action the city should take, but they were intentionally blocked from meaningful participation.  How much easier would this have been if citizens were brought into the process early and educated about the choices to be made.  Wait - isn't that what is supposed to happen anyway?   Oh, this is confusing.

4.  The EPA makes its rules for the states to follow, and then the State DEQ adds more rules to pass on to local jurisdictions.  At every level, a governing body may not subtract from, but may add to the regulations of the higher-authority government agency.   For LO, the sequence is : EPA  to State DEQ to Phase I Permittee.  Phase I is for medium and large cities, or groups of small cities working under a common permit.  The end set of regulations that Lake Oswego is obligated to follow is the Phase I MS4 NPDES Permit from Clackamas County Service District #1.  Lake Oswego must follow the terms of the County permit.  It can make its rules more stringent, but not less.

5.  The City, as a co-permittee on the MS4 Permit, is required to have its own MS4 Permit.  The most recent permits are posted on the State DEQ Stormwater webpage.  Both the common permit and the city permit expire in March of 2017.  While the city is required to update its Stormwater Management Manual (amend its current design manual, adopt another city's manual, or develop a new one), the hotly-debated trigger thresholds for complying with onsite stormwater infiltration systems are not required to change.  Both the County's and Lake Oswego's existing MS4 Permits state that only projects more than 3,000 SF in area must comply with new stormwater regulations - to the "maximum extent practicable."  Bingo.  What was so hard about that?    

6.   The biggest question remains - why does the Engineering Department want to push the threshold down to 500 SF?  After hearing so many complaints about the lower limits, the newest proposal (at the Planning Commission Public Hearing on Nov. 23) gave a new recommendation that would soften requirements for projects between 500 SF and 3,000 SF.  Unfortunately, the proposal before the Commission did not have any of the codes changed to reflect this new way of thinking, so it is unclear what, exactly, the new recommendation would look like.  Also, without new codes, the recommendation means nothing, so why put it in at all?

Why should anyone care?  With stormwater coming out of our ears, our yards, flowing down the slopes, across roads and other yards, turning ditches into torrents and flooding streets and basements, doing something - anything - seems imperative.  Here's what you need to think about:  pushing stormwater problems onto individual homeowners at great cost and trouble for them is wrong.  Development of public infrastructure has always been the city's responsibility and shouldn't become an expensive burden for just a few.  The additional personnel needed to administer, map, inspect and track all of these systems will break the City's budget also and add even more to our tax bill.  And most of these green facilities don't work.  There are many of these things all over town that flood every time it rains, even just a little.  A decent storm water system is better than idealistic, bureaucratic thinking.  And if you don't think you will have to deal with this, think again.  As codes are written now, it is only a matter of time before every home in the city (except on extreme slopes, etc.) will have to comply.  Will you be ready?

Where do we go from here?  

As always, let your City Council know what you think.  

It's our city after all!  

Why alarmists can't quit

WSJ December. 2015
Letters:

'Warming' Science Is Anything But Settled

Because the vested financial and political interests are too great for alarmists to drop

In re­gard to your Dec. 2 ed­i­to­r­ial “We’ll Al­ways Have the Il­lu­sions of Paris”:

Con­cern­ing il­lu­sions, we will al­ways have the il­lu­sions of global warm­ing, too, be­cause the vested fi­nan­cial and po­lit­i­cal in­ter­ests are too great for the alarmists to drop. Their il­lu­sions are great: Sea level rise is go­ing to be cat­astrophic de­spite the top sea level ex­pert, Stock­holm ge­ol­o­gist Nils-Axel Mo­erner, say­ing that is “the great­est lie ever told”; Arc­tic ice is melt­ing de­spite its 5% in­crease in the last nine years; the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarc­tica is fail­ing de­spite the in-creased ice pack there over the past 15 years; ex­treme weather events will in­crease be­cause of global warm­ing de­spite cy­clonic ac­tiv­ity fall­ing to a 30-year low af­ter Rita and Ka­t­rina in 2005, de­spite tor­nado ac­tiv­ity trend-ing down for 50 years, and de­spite the U.N. IPCC con­cur­rence that ex-treme events are not in­creas­ing; global warm­ing is caused by in­creased car­bon diox­ide at­mos­pheric con­cen-tra­tions de­spite the U.N.’s model sig-na­ture for this to oc­cur, a hot spot 10-12 kilo­me­ters above the trop­ics, has never been found, de­spite those con­cen­tra­tions be­ing much higher though ge­o­logic his­tory, at times dur-ing glacial pe­ri­ods, and de­spite the in­crease in car­bon diox­ide con­cen­tra-tions over the past 17 years not caus-ing Earth tem­per­a­tures to rise; tem-per­a­tures are ris­ing quickly de­spite satel­lite data show­ing no tem­per­a­ture in­crease since 1998.

These are the lies alarmists say really need to be mitigated immediately or there will be catastrophe.  The immediacy is needed, of course, before the misinformed populace learns the truth.  Perhaps alarmists should abide by their own precautionary principle and not wreck our economy before the science is settled, which it definitely is not.

Terry W. Donze

Geophysicist 

Wheat Ridge, Colo.

Yours, mine or ours?

Our Urban Forest

Consider these questions:

1.  Under what conditions should property owners be allowed to cut their trees?

2.  Under what conditions should property owners be prohibited from cutting their trees?

The first question assumes society has ultimate control of the whole of people's rights and can give them back as allowable actions. The second question assumes the individual is empowered with all of his natural rights and is only prohibited from acting in a way that will harm others.  If there is a question of balance, which philosophy should weigh more heavily?  

The first argument is that government codes were important to maintain control over trees "for the common good."  Trees act as a public infrastructure that we all benefit from.  There is a growing movement away from individualism toward a community-based world view, and that was a good thing.  

The second argument claims validity from rights to property guaranteed by the Constitution, and man's natural desire for autonomy.  The lean towards maximum liberty can be pursued with better effect by using encouragement, education and incentives than relying on regulations.  

It is important to note that in either case, there will be abuses, errors, and actions that neighbors do not like.  Communication before a tree is cut, or before any potential problem act, is be better than all the rules that can follow.  

Acknowledging that there should be laws and rules to regulate our behavior so that we do not have chaos, where is the balance between group and individual rights?  

Fiction or fact?

The Story of Betty and Joe elicited this response from a reader:

Gerry Good
"This depicts exactly what life will be like for those in Lake Oswego on fixed incomes - about one third of the residents. Some have adequate funds to deal with the new regulations but many do not. But perhaps most important of all the new regulations will do very little to solve the pollution problem at which they are directed! Why? Because only a few hundred homes a year will be required to make these changes. It will take 40 years or more to cover all homes in Lake Oswego. is that a real solution?????"  on The story of Betty and Joe

 Response: "It will take 40 years or more to cover all the homes in Lake Oswego."  Of course, Gerry's  right.  But only if this is the end of stormwater regulations for residential areas.  Now try to imagine a bureaucracy that stopped making new rules.  You can't do it, can you?

In the October 26, Planning Commission study session, on page 1 of Attachment 1 of  draft of the Stormwater Management Manual, the engineering department commented, "City staff believe that Stormwater requirements should be applied to all impervious surfaces on a site, not just the incremental increase of impervious surface."

However the public or our politicians think, at least it is clear what the staff thinks.

By now, he biggest polluters of our waterways have been taken care of.  What is left are smaller and smaller pieces of the pie that are increasingly more difficult and expensive to deal with.  Logic is not the bureaucrat's best friend.

At the Planning Commission public hearing on November 23, person after person came forward to attest to the fact that rain gardens don't work and now expensive they are.  The same information is available to the engineers, but nothing is ever said about the downside to this infrastructure, and their estimates of potential costs were remarkably lower than what the construction professionals who testified quoted.

While Lake Oswego is not off the hook to create some regulations that comply with the General MS4 permit, there is a choice about how strict the city should be.

Should Lake Oswego require property owners to install infiltration systems when they build or replace 500 SF, 1,000 SF, 3,000 SF, 5,000 SF of impervious surface?  (The 5,000 SF number may be very difficult as LO's current limit is 3,000 SF.)   Should the City err on the side of the environment and assume the stormwater systems work?  OR should the City consider what residents will have to deal with and adopt the least restrictive regulations possible?  (Note - even the least restrictive will catch too many and cost too much.)  Should the City lobby the state legislature to back off on the regulatory burdens it is forcing on citizens?  Finally, should the City do more to install public infrastructure that would take the burden off of private property owners?

I think readers will know my answers to these questions.  What are yours?  Let the City Council know what you think.

It's our city after all.  

A website for thinkers

HBD: Human BioDiversity

I am going to make some time to read at least a few of the suggested titles on this list about HBD: Human BioDiversity.  The issues are or have been controversial and the material should be educational.  Filtering fact from fiction is necessary to come to logical conclusions about the BIG stuff like IQ, gender differences, nature vs nurture, etc.

Stroll through the website for a lot of fascinating and captivating pages.  You will want to bookmark this site.

JayMan's Blog
A Fastidious Connoisseur of Empiricism 

jaymans.wordpress.com

Here are a few maps from the site's American Nations Series:

The Story of Betty and Joe

The Story of Betty and Joe

(and what may happen when they replace their leaky roof)

Betty and Joe Williams had lived in Lake Oswego for over 45 years in the same house. They raised their 3 children in the home, they knew all their neighbors, and they adapted the one-level ranch home to their future needs because they planned on staying there for as long as they could. This was the house their children would come home to for the holidays. And this is where they wanted to live until they didn't.  Next year they would finally get rid of the old

wood shake roof and put on a shingle roof that would last them longer than they would be alive, and then all the big jobs would be done!

Betty and Joe were worried.  They heard from friends that the city was considering a new rule that anyone putting on a new roof over 1,000 sq. ft. would have to put in an expensive stormwater

infiltration system.  This was all new to the Williams. They couldn't understand why the city would make them hire professionals to design a rain garden or something like it just because they replaced their old wood roof!  But the city could decide on a 3,000 SF rule if they wanted.  That wouldn't help them, so maybe the minimum could be higher?

And to add more pain, they would have to have an "operations and maintenance manual" for the thing recorded with their deed (so new owners would have to keep it up, even if the infiltration system didn't work), and then have maintenance and reporting tasks to do each year. All to replace a roof?  How stupid. This regulation was infuriating, and really unfair.   Dozens of their neighbors replaced their roofs without this expensive new rule.  What were the Greenies trying to do them - throw them out of their home?  What could they do?

Jim and Margaret Summers down the street were planning to replace

their cracked and broken driveway.  Because they lived up a slope, the driveway was long - well over 1,000 sq. ft. - so they were in the same boat as the Williams.  They had heard that pervious pavers
might cost about the same as regular concrete, so the added expense wasn't the issue.  Was there any maintenance to do for a permeable driveway?  Why would the city want them to record the driveway pavers with the deed considering that NOTHING - certainly not a driveway - lasts forever?  They were pretty sure they could still visit their children and grandchildren in Texas this year, but best not to count on anything until all the costs were known.

When were the rules going to be voted on anyway?  Should they call one of the city counselors?

Betty and Joe wondered how their retirement budget, which they thought was generous 10 years ago, was going to survive the escalating water and sewer rates, and now this "rain tax" that only  some people would have to bear.  The financial landscape ahead looked scary.  Perhaps the government wanted everyone to live in a box in the city and turn the suburbs into forest preserves that a lucky few can walk or bike in, as if bureaucrats and environmentalists know what was here before humans touched the landscape.  Where would the next generation live?  Young people can't afford this!

The Williams and the Summers talked with their neighbors and friends at the Ming's annual holiday party and all expressed the same concerns.  They all faced the same ugly choices to pay an additional price to fix up their aging houses: 1. Take money from their retirement savings; 2. Take out a HELOC; 3. Defer needed maintenance as long as possible; 4. Patch, patch, patch; 5. Not do maintenance at all; 6. Move to a condo or apartment; or 7. Move out of the city.  Poor Mary Worth on the corner

and other single ladies like her would probably just not do the repairs or remodels they planned and the city would be the worse for it.  This is what happens when people can't keep up with the demands of government or don't feel the pride of ownership of their own land - they become de-facto renters with government making the rules.


Betty and Joe and their neighbors' houses had already lost value with all of the new building requirements and high cost of living facing property owners these days.  The stricter the rules, the less desirable the property was. They all agreed that Lake Oswego had changed and it was no longer the city they once enjoyed living in.


The old relaxed demeanor of the town had given way to a fancier, more controlled way of life, with so many rules that neighbors were now spying on neighbors.  What ever happened to live and let live?  Why does everyone want to control us and our land, they thought.  Just thinking about this mess made

them angrier and sadder. These ordinances get through one at a time and only affect a handful of people at first so no one pays attention - it's not THEIR problem.  But over time, when the noose tightens, everyone will be caught.  How do the politicians plan to keep themselves out of the messes they create?  Oh yeah, it doesn't affect them NOW, so it isn't a problem!  Evidently the "experts" are expert at persuasion.

Now they understood why those people were fighting against the Sensitive Lands on their property.  But what could they do, Betty and Joe thought?  Only rich people would be able to afford houses in the future. The City Council still has the choice to fight to turn back the clock - if only.  Or, the citizens could vote for a new mayor and council members who would.  It may be too late for them and their roof though.

Merry Christmas to all they cheered, but no Happy New Year, they mumbled as they headed for home that night, heads down and footsteps slowed by the huge financial and regulatory burden they all carried.