Filed under: Uncategorized
-
Recent Comments
molallablog on New Bumper sticker found oregonfirst on Molalla River School Dist… molallablog on Molalla River School Dist… oregonfirst on Molalla River News molallablog on Molalla River News
 | molallablog on New Bumper sticker found |
 | oregonfirst on Molalla River School Dist… |
| molallablog on Molalla River School Dist… |
| oregonfirst on Molalla River News |
| molallablog on Molalla River News |
Filed under: Uncategorized
The plannin’ meetin’ was awfully glum on Wednesday night.
Plannin’ dude Potter was “too busy” to produce minutes from the previous meeting or to copy and distribute the negative letters from ODOT and DLCD. That is a big “no-no” with the officials who monitor these “official” hearings” – but it’s Molalla plannin’ folks, so why would anyone bother to follow the rules or to respect the citizens who bother to come?
Plannin’ dude now has version “A” and “B” of urban reserve maps – and he won’t be a gettin’ either one! How much did those expensive new maps cost? How many more versions will it take till Molalla understands that it is not a gonna happen?
The DUMBEST comment of the night award goes to (drum roll!) city councilor Danna Jacober. As Jacober looked at a map of all the RURAL reserves surrounding Canby, Oregon City, and Sandy she commented that those cities “wouldn’t be able to grow” because of all the protected land!
I guess Jacober never heard of INFILL or GROWING UP INSTEAD OF OUT. I guess Jacober can’t understand how MANHATTAN has managed to grow. I guess Jacober can’t understand how PDX continues to GROW even though it is completely surrounded by other cities and can’t expand outside its current boundaries.
IT IS CALLED INFILL – IT IS CALLED GROW UP INSTEAD OF OUT!
It is called time and money wasted when “leaders” like Jacober STILL DON’T GET IT. The city is being laughed at by all outsiders – EVERYONE knows that the city won’t get the absurd urban reserves.
The “lawyer” had the gall to say that “maybe” by this time NEXT YEAR they might have the plans knocked together!
How many times have we heard that? Please, someone go and thumb through the YEARS of Pioneer stories where Potter tells us he is “almost done” with the comp plan!
The “lawyer” gets paid whether the city fails or not. In fact, the “lawyer” and the “consultant” get paid MORE the longer the Ground Hog Day comp plan goes
Commissioner Lehan noted at CPO that most other cities in Clackamas County are not begging for more land – they have leaders who are smart enough to know that cities – the taxpayers – can’t afford the new infrastructure need to grow out. These cities are working on realistic plans to grow without expanding the UGB.
What will it take for “leaders” in Molalla to understand that very simple fact? Molalla can’t afford to maintain what it already has or to fund plannin’ without “borrowing” money from other funds. How bankrupt does Molalla have to get to learn the truth about the false growth needs?
Plannin’ hearin’ comments, part 2:
At the Nov 4 hearin’, “lawyer” Crean, when questioned about the negative Oct 27 letter from DLCD, said that in the past the letters were up to 22 pages of negative comments and that now it was “only 2 pages” as if that was progress.
What he failed to tell was that the DLCD letter had this catch phrase (like they all do):
“However, the individual documents still do not appear to get Molalla where the city wants and needs to be. In general, the comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances are still hard to follow and will likely be difficult for city staff to administer”.
That means that DLCD is sick of writing detailed letters about ALL THE FAULTS AND INDEFENSIBLE ELEMENTS of the comp plan. Crean’s assertion that “only 2 pages” means there are only a few problems is not factual. That quote means that there are problems throughout the comp plan that have already been well documented in past detailed letters and that DLCD won’t waste any more time commenting on a pile of garbage that has not been changed per their past suggestions.
Plannin’ now can twist in the wind and try for “fixes” – I await with glee the day the “unfixed” plans land on the desk of professional County planners – then the sparks will fly and then Crean and Potter’s poorly tended chickens will come home to roost. Bring it on! County hearing fun ahoy! The tone will change big time when the indefensible “plans” leave city limits and show up on the desk of real planners who understand and follow the rules on state land use planning.
ADD TO COMP PLAN FILES
In regards to the voting to approve the New Comp plan I would like to say that all City Councilors that have been previously on the Planning Commission ( I believe there are 4 councilors) should not be able to vote “for or against” approval of the new comp plan based on the City of Molalla Council rules noted below. I expect to see a public vote on this matter as noted in the council rules.
1.02.160 Bias and Disqualification
1. Any proponent, opponent or other party interested in a quasi-judicial matter to be heard by Council may challenge the qualification of any Council member to participate in such hearing and decision. Any challenge must state any fact(s) relied upon by the party relating to a Council member’s bias, pre-judgment, personal interest or other factor from which the party has concluded the Council member should not participate and may not make an impartial decision. Such challenges must be made prior to the commencement of the public hearing. The Mayor will give the challenged member an opportunity to respond. A motion to accept or deny the challenge will be accepted and voted upon by the Council. Such challenges and the Council’s decision will be incorporated into the record of the hearing.
2. In quasi-judicial matters, each Council member must disclose participation in a prior decision or action on the matter that is before the Council. Common examples include when a Planning Commission member is elected or appointed to the City Council or when a Council member testifies at a Planning Commission meeting. The Council member must state whether the member can participate in the hearing with no regard for the prior decision made. If the Council member is unable to be impartial, the member has a duty not to participate in proceedings and leave the Council table.
1. I feel Councilors that were previously on the Planning Commission cannot make a un-biased decision. Those councilors are not likely to vote against the very plan they created. I don’t feel that there is any way for them to be impartial.
Stephen Clark
Citizen of Molalla
The above comments point out again how ingrown Molalla “government” is. The mayor appoints people to be on the planning commission and when (often) city councilors need to be replaced they seem to always come from the planning commission.
So: Mayor picks planning commission, mayor and council pick councilors from the planning commission and the insider trading club gets ever smaller.
Until Molalla finds a fair way to pick diverse people to fill committee spots it will continue to implode with bad ideas piled on bad ideas.
Citizen participation should reflect the demographics and needs of the city – not the need of the mayor to stack the deck with people who think just like he does.
Anyone ever hear of the dangers of inbreeding – that’s what Molalla “government” has done and the lack of progress reflects the lack of diversity and lack of broad citizen input and participation.
Nov. 4, 2009
ADD TO COMP PLAN FILES – Statement to City Council
At the October 27th CPO meeting, I almost choked when City Manager Atkins claimed that Molalla planning wants to be “responsive” to citizens. I have attended planning events since July of 2007 and have seen nothing responsive to Goal One (citizen involvement) in any proceedings.
Molalla’s planning has followed a noxious route enlightened planners call the DEAD path, where Decisions are made without broad input from citizens, where outside consultants Evaluate what has already been Decided, where the city Advocates for that Evaluation, and where the city only goes to citizens to Defend predetermined plans. Tonight’s kangaroo court format ensures there will never be lively, free, and relaxed debate. Your format is designed to intimidate citizens and discourage participation.
City government has been so unresponsive that I have had to call the District Attorney three times to obtain access to planning documents. An October 2008 letter, signed by 12 citizens, asked for a neutral mediator. It was ignored. Councilor Needham asked in a recent op-ed for round table discussions. He was ignored. Business leader Gary Deardoff complains in this week’s Pioneer about the lack of early citizen involvement.
It was crystal clear Molalla would only advocate for land speculators when, in summer of 2007, Atkins announced high-end McMansion plans for Class 2 EFU Kyllo Tree Farm, well before any formal planning action had begun with DLCD.
Molalla planning can hold hearings for the next 50 years and vilify community groups but the only fault for this planning failure is city leaders who have refused heed numerous warnings and have allowed bankrupt, fantasy based “aspirational’ planning to supercede realistic planning goals.
Feedback letters from DLCD, starting in Feb 2007, convey the same message over and over: “…. documents still do not appear to get Molalla where the city wants and needs to be. In general, the comprehensive plan and the implementing ordinances are still hard to follow and will likely be difficult for city staff to administer”.
Planner Potter has wrongly claimed this is a “raise it or wave it” process. Instead, in this legislative planning process, any citizen may appear at any stage before any deciding body to raise objections to any parts of these fatally flawed plans.
Molalla has no defensible methodology to prove a need for growth outside of its borders, let alone the ability to plan 50 years in the future. The outlandishly laughable 50-year urban reserves have been promoted solely for the benefit of greedy land speculators.
DLCD told Molalla in Feb. 2007 that it was expected to grow little in the future and invited Molalla to stop worrying about UGB expansion. What part about that sage advice didn’t the planning commission get? Why waste hundreds of thousands of public funds planning for growth that won’t happen?
Molalla has not addressed Goal 10.This complex goal demands an efficiency study that not only shows vacant land but also shows low development to land value sites. Goal 10 requires an honest demographic study to reflect the objective housing needs of current and future residents so that realistic housing mixes can be implemented.
Big lot McMansion dreams, like the absurd proposed equestrian estates, have died a quick death all around the state. Current building trends are for smaller, energy efficient homes with easy access to mass transit and diverse urban services. Global warming and peak oil must be considered in any urban plans. Molalla’s geographic location and failed economy will inhibit future growth.
Molalla has no Goal 5, which demands detailed inventories and plans for the protection of cultural and natural resources within and outside the UGB.
It’s hard to mention with a straight face the years of flim flam that have gone on with the population projection. Vast sums have been wasted on legally indefensible studies, lawyer fees, and threatening letters. Molalla should have long ago accepted the legal safe harbor.
DLCD told you in Sept 2008 how to move the city forward by adopting the safe harbor, a parks plan, the Downtown Master Plan and codes based on the content of the DLCD’s model codes. You are endangering the real estate investments of thousands of residents by refusing to follow that path.
A refusal to adopt the Downtown Master Plan will endanger Molalla’s future ability to get grants; furthermore, whether you pass it or not, Molalla will be held to the same urban development standards outlined in the plan.
The proposed codes and ordinances are weak and subjective. Molalla can’t compete for business if it doesn’t have simple, objective codes that are clear and fair to all who seek permits. The horror stories about the difficulties of doing business here are widespread.
Your plans are an insult to the intent of Oregon land use goals. Oregon taxpayers can’t afford to further fund your unethical Ground Hog Day planning adventure.