[Grovenet] Future of Downtown Forest Grove (WAS: Fwd: LandUse Update August 16th)

[David Morelli]

On Aug 27, 2007, at 11:18 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

>
> You misread me. I said that people were penalized at random by the  
> land use laws, not that the land use laws were applied at random.  
> That's two very different things. Even though the land use laws are  
> implemented uniformly, whether someone was injured was based on  
> when they happened to acquire the property.
>
I disagree.  They were not penalized.  People either chose to  
subdivide their property when that option was available or they chose  
to not subdivide their property when it was available.  That was a  
decision that they made.  It is not random.  People who purchased  
their property later, did not have that option.  If anyone lost the  
option it wasn't the people who chose not to exercise the option.

>
> David wrote:
>
> Raising livestock is tough enough without suddenly having a   
> subdivision sprouting next door with owners who think that they  
> can  let their dogs run loose "out in the country".
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> I agree, and that's an issue at the edges of all urban areas that  
> I've seen.  It has nothing to do with M37. They exist today. They  
> existed yesterday wherever housing abuts other types of property,  
> whether it's a factory, farm or whatever.

Nothing to do with M37?  Huh?  Land use planning seeks to minimize  
land use conflicts by separating uses.  Wise or not wise, that is one  
of the goals of zoning.  M37 seeks to remove the land use planning  
and allow land owners to develop the land without regard to the  
impact of the conflict on existing neighboring uses.  M37 seeks to  
pepper rural Washington County with residential developments that are  
in the middle of rural uses.  M37 seeks to expand the scope of the  
problem.  The perimeter of each new M37 rural residential development  
is an "edge of urban area".  Of course the conflict has something to  
do with M37.

David