Growing up in Forest Grove, I took many of its virtues for granted. My earliest memories are
of a community in which a small child could safely walk the streets alone and listen to the crickets at night in
the middle of town. A place where a child could walk alone to a store to buy a treat to share with friends. Some
say that is a nostalgic view of a past which our children will never enjoy.
As neighborhoods are being replaced with subdivisions, their view seems almost inevitable. We
spend ever more time driving long distances to and from work, then driving the kids across town to school and other
events. Even driving used to be fun, but now it is a daily ordeal of noisy crowded streets hostile to motorists
and pedestrians alike.
For Forest Grove, it is not too late to save the best of the past. The crickets still sing at
night in Old Town, and it is still a friendly place to live. But unless we improve our transportation systems and
adopt standards now that will protect our town, it will be swallowed by a sea of new developments that ignore community
values.
We welcome the growth, but demand that new developments pay their own way and that they be built
to our standards. Those standards should emphasize community over short-term profit, clean parks, water, and air
over a fast buck. We do not have to accept growth on someone else’s terms, but unless we act now, others will set
those standards for us.
Let me know what you think!
I would greatly appreciate any comments you may have (good or bad) about this statement. I hope
you'll take a moment after reading this to use this form to send me your comments. Thank you! Your
name:
Your email address:
Your comments:
Further Details that wouldn't fit in the Voters' Pamphlet:
- Standards for New Housing Developments
- Actions for Safer Neighborhoods
- Improving The Comprehensive Plan
- Managing Our Watershed, Water Treatment and Supply
- Transportation
- Metro
Housing Standards:
What are the standards that we should adopt? The Planning Commission is working on several proposals
that would further these ideals. The Committee for Citizen Involvement held a forum on their new standards for
residential development on 10 September. These new standards would require new housing to have greater visibility
onto the street, either by using front porches, bay windows, or garages set back behind the facade of the house.
After the forum, I asked Vernor Schenck, who has done wonders revitalizing the Neighborhood Watch program, if there
were any studies that would indicate how housing design could influence neighborhood safety. He indicated that
he was unaware of any such studies, but on the other hand, just the day before a local resident had observed two
suspicious characters in a neighbor's side yard, and because of that, the two were caught in the act of burglary
"and are in jail tonight."
Many areas of Forest Grove have been recently developed with rows of "snout houses,"
that is houses that hide behind the garage. Driving or walking down the street, all one sees is a row of garage
doors and hidden entry-ways. It is easy to see how houses in a development like this would make easy pickings for
burglars.
Other aspects of the proposal would give developers greater flexibility in designing subdivisions,
encouraging a diversity of lot sizes and the retention of "natural" or "common areas." Current
standards almost force developers to use uniform lot sizes and housing types, which is directly opposed to the
most commonly cited aspect that people like about Forest Grove.
Unfortunately, the current Council, which is dominated by real estate speculators, developers,
and downtown businessmen, is almost certain to kill the best parts of this and other proposals. They have shown
little interest in the past in anything but the bottom line for developers. They seem to think that we need to
subsidize developers to get them to build here. They don't seem to realize that nothing could have induced developers
to build in Forest Grove during the recession of the 80's. But now we are being inundated with new development,
and must plan accordingly.
- I will support the work of the Planning Commission to address these problems. Furthermore, I
will work for a closer relation between the Planning Commission and City Council in all areas of land use decision
making.
Other Actions for Safer Neighborhoods:
Better standards for new housing is one way we can make new developments into safer neighborhoods.
But we can take other actions that will improve the safety of existing neighborhoods.
- Safer Streets: We can have safer streets by choosing
from a variety of measures known as "traffic calming" to slow down traffic in our neighborhoods. I will
call for a citizen task force to investigate these ideas and make recommendations for action.
- Campaign for community values: There is little that
city government can do directly to stop what we all see as a general decline in social cohesion. Nor can we either
expect or afford to wait for a solution from Washington. But we can provide a platform to discuss the problems
and seek solutions together. I will propose a second task force to consider ways to improve the life of our community.
Some ideas for consideration:
- Coordinate community efforts to promote parenting. The Rotary Club and others have made notable
efforts in this area. But if more groups can work together, how much more could be accomplished?
- As more people discover our favorite town, it becomes more critical to provide activities for
our youth. Far too many have nothing better to do than to "hang out," an unhealthy situation for them
and for the community.
- We are currently pursuing a very expensive "big government" solution to crime. Let's
seek community-based solutions by providing more opportunities for community service.
- And let's not wait for "at risk" youth to turn to crime, let's work with our schools
to provide credit for community service and encourage all students to take on community service tasks. And let's
make sure the opportunities for their service are in place.
- We have several institutions for retired people in our community. Why not encourage them to
provide space for day-care facilities on their premises? While many schools send their students to sing, perform,
or just occasionally visit the seniors who live there, can't we develop more regular contacts to bridge the generation
gaps that the extended family used to provide?
- Others will have ideas to contribute, but unless we come together as a community to act, nothing
will happen.
The Comprehensive Plan:
Every year the need to update the city's Comprehensive Plan is brought up at the annual Town
Meeting, but the current Council shows little interest in following through with this. Instead, it gets only a
nod of approval (or was that just nodding off to sleep?). The current Plan is filled with archaic notions like
using high density housing to "buffer" residential areas from undesirable features like highways. The
need for high density housing has resulted in miscellaneous less desirable areas throughout the city being designated
for high density housing.
- We need to update the plan using a rational approach, like concentrating high-density housing
near the Pacific/19th Avenue transit corridor. We also need to scrap the "Commercial Auto" zone which
encourages an incompatible mix of businesses in the central core of Forest Grove. We need, instead, to encourage
businesses that contribute to the vitality of the central core area.
Watershed and Water Treatment and Supply:
In the past, the City staff and City Council have treated our watershed like a private slush
fund, clearcutting areas as needed to provide revenue for projects like the new Public Works building. And how
have they managed this? Did they hire watershed ecologists to minimize the damage? No, they hired timber consultants
who clearcut steep slopes directly above our water intakes!
And then they assured us that we didn't really need the watershed anymore, that the Watercrest
Road Water Treatment Plant (which treats the water from the watershed) was obsolete and would have to be abandoned
anyway, and the Joint Water Commission treatment plant would provide all our water needs.
As it turns out, our water treatment plant is not obsolete and will not need major retooling
in the foreseeable future. It now provides about half of our water needs, and is probably a better source than
the JWC plant on Fernhill Road which draws water out of the Tualatin River just upstream from the sewage treatment
plant.
The current council majority has shown little interest in protecting our watershed from harmful
logging practices, and even less in maintaining the Watercrest Treatment Plant.
- I support protection of our watershed and maintaining a dual supply. We have been blessed by
the foresight of others who developed and protected our watershed, we should do no less. We should maintain both
sources to protect our supply in the event of a natural disaster or contamination of one source. We should rely
on the best understanding of watershed ecology in managing the watershed, not just on the price per board foot
of timber.
Transportation:
Over the past years I have watched in frustration as the Council has avoided action on the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). It is well over a year
now since the last extension of time from the State of Oregon to bring our local ordinances into compliance with
the TPR. Because of the Council's inability to deal with this issue, local development must look to Salem for guidance
at additional time and expense. Indeed, one councilor who speculates in real estate has frustrated any attempt
to deal with this issue on a local basis. In open defiance of state law he asks "What will they do to us if
we don't?" Acting by himself, this would be of little consequence, but he has the support of three other councilors.
One example of their approach to improving transportation efficiency occurred during a recent
work session on the TPR. The TPR seeks to reduce the need for excess auto miles, as occurs when customers have
to drive short distances from one parking lot to the next because there is no easy pedestrian access between the
businesses. During an hour's discussion considering how the downtown Central Business District zoning could be
amended to adopt the goals of the TPR, the "gang of four" instead decided to eliminate setback requirements,
and make it easier for every other building downtown to be razed and replaced with parking lots! Far from increasing
efficiency, this would lead to greater inefficiency and is an obvious slap in the face towards complying with the
TPR and preserving the historic core of Forest Grove.
The Forest Grove Planning Commission and city staff, in work sessions and public hearings, devoted
many hours and a lot of work towards writing local ordinances furthering the TPR objectives of greater transportation
efficiency. But for nearly two years now, the Council's "gang of four" has allowed these proposals to
languish. They have used wild distortions and outright lies to put a facade of righteousness on their position.
One would have thought that one councilor who is an employee of the Washington County Dept. of Land Use and Transportation
would know better than to portray the TPR as an attempt to force mothers to take their children to school and do
the family shopping on a bicycle!
Even Councilor Fuiten, who also has an interest in development but valiantly tried to work out
a compromise position, has been totally rebuffed.
Current construction costs for new highways on relatively undeveloped land start at $5,000,000
per mile. They seem to think that taxpayers are just itching to spend that kind of money on new highways, rather
than adopting standards for new development that would reduce the need for those highways.
- I will support the adoption of standards that would make transportation safer and more accessible
to pedestrians, transit riders, bicyclists, and car-pools. Let's act now to lessen the need for ever more expensive
highways, and make driving more pleasant, besides. We can have less congested streets without ransoming the entire
city!
Some Thoughts on Metro
Metro-bashing is a popular sport among many of the current members of the City Council. Echoing
each other, they blame Metro for any number of evils, and pretend that Metro is a fascist organization out to impose
that dreaded evil, "social engineering," on the peaceful hamlet of Forest Grove. Metro, to their way of thinking, is even responsible for forcing
new housing upon us, leading to a deterioration of our way of life. (By the way, you can substitute the word "Tri-Met"
for Metro anywhere in this section, they use both terms in the same way.)
Well, the truth of the matter is that the same councilors who are so fond of bashing Metro, are
the same ones who have been fighting tooth and nail to bring more and more development to Western Washington County.
They say this is for our own best interest, that it will lower our taxes and bring prosperity to our town. What
they don't mention is that most of these new industries bring in their new employees from elsewhere. What they
don't mention is that as far as tax rates are concerned, development raises taxes as much as it spreads them out.
Otherwise, why aren't the tax rates in Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin, and Wilsonville much lower than ours? (They
aren't, in fact they are about the same: some a bit lower, some a bit higher.)
The truth of the matter is, the people of Oregon have repeatedly voted for careful land-use controls,
preferring controlled growth over Los Angeles-style urban sprawl. In our area, that means Metro, the agency charged
with implementing land-use controls in the Portland Metropolitan area.
"Oh, but we're not really a part of the metropolitan area!" they say. "We shouldn't
have to live under the same umbrella. We're just a little town out in the country, we want to do everything by
ourselves. Forget Portland." Do you remember ever hearing that argument from them when they wanted to have
Forest Grove included in the Portland metro local telephone calling area so their customers in Portland could call
us without long distance charges (and vice versa)? Did you hear that argument when they were trying to get county
and state money to improve the highway routes to Portland for the sake of economic opportunity? Of course not!
The truth of the matter is, they all have their hands in the cookie jar (speculating in real
estate, selling houses, insurance, gasoline, etc.), but they don't want to pay for the cookies! They want all the
economic advantages of being part of the Portland Metro area, but they don't want to pay the price for it.
This might not matter very much, but the result of the Metro-bashing is that all of our political
capital is spent in the futile bashing, and the people of Forest Grove get little to show for it. The Highway 47
bypass might have been finished long ago if we had had representatives willing to work with state and regional
governments rather than bashing them. People who work for those authorities see little to gain from working with
us, knowing they're going to be the butt of another round of bashing whatever they do.
Like it or not, Metro (and the rest of our neighbors) will have a lot to say about how Forest
Grove develops. Let's elect some new people to Council who can work for Forest Grove not for the economic interests
of their cronies and them. Let's elect some people to Council who will work for Forest Grove, not cut off our noses
to spite our faces!
(Last modified: 10/26/96)
Want to know more, make a statement, or ask a question? Feel free to send me e-mail!