About FMC Activities Board of Directors Membership

Links  Issues

Issues, Concerns, and Ideas for Marion County

ACTION REQUESTED:
Help defeat HB 2689 (which would allow urban-scale sprawl in rural areas) by contacting four key Senators.

BACKGROUND:
In its current form, HB 2689 would exempt commercial and industrial development in so-called "exception" areas from having to comply with Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals related to urbanization (Goals 11 and 14). These goals provide for compact, orderly urban development. The Oregon Association of Realtors is the chief supporter of the bill.

HB 2689 would allow urban development on 50-60,000 acres of rural land. HB 2689 applies to the commercial and industrial-zoned land that has been "excepted" from Oregon's farmland and forestland protection goals. Today, these lands cannot be used for urban types of development like big box stores, shopping malls, hotels, and office parks. HB 2689 would repeal these restrictions.

EXAMPLES OF IMPACTS:


• A Wal-Mart suddenly popping up at what is now one of your favorite quaint country crossroads.
• More factory outlet malls scattered along the Oregon coast where only limited development exists.

BILL STATUS:
An extreme version of the bill passed the House. The bill was then referred to the Senate Water and Land Use Committee, where a public hearing was held.

Sponsors have realized that the extreme House version of the bill is likely to fail in the Senate. They are currently working to create a "compromise" that would be acceptable, while bill opponents, including 1000 Friends of Oregon and the environmental community, are focusing on defeating the bill.

WHO TO CONTACT:
Four key Senators can provide the leadership to defeat this bill: Senators Ringo and Metsger, on the Senate Water and Land Use Committee, and Senators Courtney and Brown, key leadership people.

An individual meeting with these senators is ideal. I would be happy to help you arrange for a personal meeting that includes one or more activists. If your schedule does not permit a one-on-one meeting, please write them a letter, call them, or send them an e-mail:

Senator Ringo: sen.charlieringo@state.or.us, (503) 986-1717
Room S-314, 900 Court St. NE, Salem, OR 97301

Senator Metsger: sen.rickmetsger@state.or.us, (503) 986-1726
Room S-307, 900 Court St. NE, Salem, OR 97301

Senator Brown: sen.katebrown@state.or.us, (503) 986-1700
Room S-323, 900 Court St. NE, Salem, OR 97301

Senator Courtney: sen.petercourtney@state.or.us, (503) 986-1600
Room S-203, 900 Court St. NE, Salem, OR 97301

In all contacts, ask them to please reject HB 2689, which is an unnecessary bill that would lead to costly sprawl that harms our economy. In notes to Sen. Ringo and Sen. Metsger, ask them to not vote the bill out of committee.

TALKING POINTS:
* HB 2689 is Not Focused on a Clear Problem
No one has identified a compelling, clear problem the bill is trying to address, or shown that the bill would do anything to improve our economy.

* HB 2689 is Expensive to Taxpayers
HB 2689 could result in an explosion of rural sprawl requiring expensive new roads, sewers, water supplies, sheriff patrols, fire prevention, and other infrastructure in rural Oregon. If tens of thousands of acres of rural lands become available for rezoning to much higher levels of development, there will be an enormous demand for new and better roads, sewers, fire and police protection, etc.and other taxpayers in the same taxing district will foot the bill.

* HB 2689 Threatens Oregons Farming, Ranching, and Wood Products Industries
As the intensity of rural development increases, so do conflicts between non-resource uses and the farmers, ranchers and foresters trying to make their living off the land. Farming, ranching, and producing wood fiber deserve the same protection from conflicting land uses that are given to Oregons other industries.

* HB 2689 will Steal Development from Existing Areas
Building a new Wal-Mart in the middle of nowhere means that it wont go into an existing city, increasing the likelihood that existing stores and neighborhoods will be shut and left behind.

* There are Responsible Alternatives
There are many other bills that are addressing the need for industrial land in rural areas, such as HB 2691, which would allow the redevelopment of abandoned mill sites for industrial use when appropriate.

QUESTIONS Contact Evan Manvel at evan@friends.org

---

Virgina Backs Off Plans For 2 Road Projects, By Michael D. Shear

RICHMOND, May 14 -- Virginia officials said today they will abandon studies of widening Interstate 66 through Arlington County and building an outer beltway connecting Stafford, Prince William and Loudoun counties, a decision that brought cheers from slow-growth activists and warnings of continued gridlock from business groups and others.

Plans to spend $2.5 million to study adding lanes on I-66 between the District and the Capital Beltway were dropped from the state's $7.2 billion six-year transportation program, which officials released today. That portion of the highway has been limited to two lanes in each direction since it was built in the late 1970s.

Officials said they will end a study of how and where to build a highway bypass through Northern Virginia's western suburbs. Instead, the state will seek proposals from companies that might want to build a toll road or other type of highway to serve the same need.

Virginia is struggling to pay the bills for road projects it has started and even for some it has finished, and the six-year plan released today envisions little new construction. In that climate, officials said, they can no longer justify spending money to study two controversial projects, particularly when there was so little hope of having money to build them.

"The one thing we know is that absent some dramatic change on the revenue side, we are not able to pay for these," Transportation Commissioner Philip A. Shucet said. "It's the reality of what's required versus what we know we have available." The Commonwealth Transportation Board is expected to give preliminary approval to the six-year plan Thursday and will take a final vote next month.

Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), who has urged state officials to widen I-66 through Arlington, called today's announcement a huge mistake that will add traffic to local roads and stymie efforts to ease congestion on the region's major thoroughfares.

"You literally cannot solve the transportation problems in this region until you deal with this issue," Wolf said. "To just say they are not going to do it -- the state will never solve the traffic problems."

Wolf said even Arlington residents could have been convinced of the need for a wider highway. If state officials were concerned about a lack of money for the project, he said, they should have approached him for assistance.

"The state has never been reluctant to come to this office for help," he said. "I seem to get another letter from them every other day."

Bob Chase, president of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, also criticized the decision to halt the I-66 study and vowed to try to reverse it. "Try to drive into the District on Saturday night at 5 o'clock," he said. "It's bumper to bumper. The need for an additional lane on I-66 in each direction is obvious."

In Arlington, elected officials and civic activists have consistently opposed the widening of I-66, which broadens to three lanes each way outside the Beltway. Arlington County Board Chairman Paul Ferguson (D) said the state is wisely recognizing that there is too little money and almost no support for such an endeavor.

"When we have numerous transportation needs throughout the commonwealth and in Arlington, scarce resources should be spent on projects we have come to consensus on," Ferguson said.

Judy Connally, a member of the Commonwealth Transportation Board and former Arlington planning commissioner, said a wider I-66 would have been met with resistance at every step. "It would not be a project that you would see any construction on within 10 years or so," she said. "We have very limited resources. There were just so many higher-priority projects."

Likewise, slow-growth activists who have long opposed building a western bypass highway said they are pleased that the state will not finish its environmental study.

"We've long said it was the lowest of low priorities to be spending $18 million on a western bypass study," said Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. The road, he said, "would significantly increase sprawl and development."

But there may still be a future for such a highway linking Interstate 95 in Stafford County to western Montgomery County. Plans for the road have been debated in Virginia for decades.

The state will continue to study several other smaller road projects that some argue could be stitched together to create a western bypass. VDOT will study construction of a tri-county parkway that would link Prince William, Fairfax and Loudoun. And it will spend $400,000 to join Maryland in a study of a "techway" bridge across the Potomac River linking the Dulles-Herndon area with Bethesda.

In addition, the state will use the recently passed Public Private Transportation Act to solicit interest from companies in building a road in that area. Under the act, private companies can make proposals that include private financing such as tolls.

Leonard S. "Hobie" Mitchel, a Commonwealth Transportation Board member from Loudoun County and a supporter of a western bypass, said he believes use of the act could accelerate construction of some kind of bypass. "Taking it through this process may actually offer an opportunity to find some construction financing," Mitchel said. "If we don't start solving something, Routes 15, 17 and 29 will become the de facto bypass. That's not acceptable."

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57200-2003May14.html

---

The following article, written by Gene McIntyre, was published in the February 28, 2003 edition of the Keizer Times.


---


To the Keizer Times:

WHEN BIGGER ISN'T BETTER

I'm a native Oregonian, one who's lived here several years. I remember the state when it was considerably more pristine and less cluttered, providing clean air, pure water, and wide-open spaces.

Now there's a problem. Many who came here during the boom years of the '90s are jobless and looking for work. The community services they supported are under budgetary meltdown because tax receipts have been dramatically reduced. Nonetheless, these people expect the provision of public schools, police protection, and all service amenities.

In an effort to help the jobless and appease current and prospective employers, some movers and shakers in Oregon seek a massive influx of new and expanding business. In order to accomplish this goal, they're giving serious thought to abandoning Oregon's land use laws, environmental protections, building codes, remaining forests, pollution controls, taxes for investors, and a host of other alarming roll backs.

But what if Oregon took a different tack? How would it work if the state got out of competition mania, sometimes called the game of keeping up with neighboring states, and went off in another direction not in keeping with expansionistic madness. In fact, trying to capitalize on the best of Oregon through its unsurpassed natural beauty, encouraging only business that complements it? And in the process not building another, redundant shopping mall and giving it a fancy name, like "Keizer Station."

What sort of business are we talking about? Business that brings the sports-minded, the outdoorsy types, the sightseeing tourists, to name a few. Then, Oregon would be a place where residents and visitors alike enjoyed what once was the call of the west. Oregon could be a place unique in a nation where nearly every forest has been cut, the beaches, lakes, and waterways are polluted, and roads and highways are virtual parking lots. Conditions that are, like a plague on the land, spreading ever wider from Portland to the south! Let those who do not wish to participate in a reformed Oregon find their niche in other states and places.

Furthermore, should Oregon succeed in its current objective of bringing in new business and its related workforce, what's to keep that which is happening now from happening again in a few years, when another bust occurs? Nothing, that's what! In that likely scenario, the state will have added infrastructure and tens of thousands of people. Yet the state will be right back where it is today, only with a much larger population and one that's already adverse to supporting state services.

This may sound like a page from a Tom McCall or Bob Straub primer, but that simply underscores the good ideas of these former governors. It could also cause a great increase in minimum wage jobs, but only if Oregonians allowed themselves to be owned by employers rather than pursuing new-age entrepreneurial opportunities.

What's needed is a concerted effort on the part of Oregonians to take new directions, thereby avoiding massive sprawl, ubiquitous gridlock, ruin of native habitat, destruction of environment, and total, final, irrevocable loss of quality life.