Back in 2002, Metro — Portland’s regional planning czar — made several additions to the region’s urban-growth boundary. The biggest addition was 18,600 acres — supposedly enough to house 50,000 people — on the east side known as Damascus. Portland’s housing market was booming, and some people predicted a huge land-rush that would lead to windfall gains for Damascus property owners.
Now, more than six years later, nothing has happened and it looks like nothing will happen. Metro blames it on the high cost of infrastructure. The reality is that Metro planners so gummed up the process that no one could develop their property.
The claim that infrastructure is a barrier is a red herring. As the Antiplanner has shown here, developers in the Houston area manage to install sewer, water, and roads themselves and provide land for schools, parks, and other facilities. Developers pass the cost onto home and other property buyers, who pay it off over a 30-year period. Property owners also pay for their own schools, park improvements, and so forth. The financial tools used are interesting but hardly complicated. Under Oregon law, developers or the county could create special service districts to take care of the finances.
Let it work on your nervous system to reduce the feelings of stress. canada cialis 100mg browse that web-site generic cialis in canada If situation persists-it leads to mental changes as well. Optimal sexual function is what cheap viagra no prescription you required for boosting your sexual health. Concurrently, the male sexual organ receives adequate blood canadian pharmacy cialis to make the spongy tissues stiff on sexual stimulation. But before anything could happen in Damascus, Metro planners insisted on having a plan. “Planning for the new city began with a series of neighborhood meetings and informal presentations. Aided by planning money provided by Metro, a concept plan finally was unveiled — to decidedly mixed results. Some property owners who lived on the hillsides and other areas proposed as housing-free greenways heatedly objected, saying their development rights were being impinged.”
In other words, Metro added people’s land to the urban-growth boundary, then wrote a plan taking many of their properties out again. Planners also put so many restrictions on the remaining land that it just wasn’t worth the effort. This is a pattern that has been repeated in other additions to the growth boundary, notably an area called North Bethany.
On top of this, instead of designing a system that would make sure that future homebuyers paid for the infrastructure they used, Metro planners created fears among existing residents that their property taxes would go up to subsidize newcomers. The residents revolted and passed an initiative restricting future tax rates. This leaves local officials feeling that their hands are tied.
Metro leaders shake their heads and conclude that Portland will just have to live with the land that was already in the urban-growth boundary. Naturally, they don’t want to admit that they themselves are the problem.
As Henry David Thoreau said, “government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way.” It is time for planners to get out of the way of Oregon’s future.
Just Let People Do What They Want With Their Own Land
And yet, the Antiplanner supports homeowners associations that won’t let people paint their houses the color they want or won’t let conserve water by letting their lawns go dormant during dry seasons.
and even in Houston, there are many restrictions on what can be done with land.
Methinks the anti-planner “plays” fast and lose with the “zoning” idea.
it appears to me that what Houston does walks, talks and quacks like a duck … a planning duck…
wrong?
D4P said: Just Let People Do What They Want With Their Own Land
And yet, the Antiplanner supports homeowners associations that won’t let people paint their houses the color they want or won’t let conserve water by letting their lawns go dormant during dry seasons.
JK: Once again. Time afer time a planner is unable to understand a simple concept like the difference between government mandates and voluntary associations.
No wonder planners can’t get anything right.
Thanks
JK
Like a city, (homeowner) associations provide services, regulate activities, levy assessments, and impose fines. Unlike a municipal government, homeowner association governance is not subject to the Constitutional constraints that public government must abide by.
Homeowners’ associations are often criticized for having restrictive rules and regulations on how homeowners are allowed to conduct themselves and use their property.
Some scholars and the AARP charge that in a variety of ways HOAs suppress the rights of their residents. Due to their nature as a non-governmental entity, HOA boards of directors are not bound by constitutional restrictions on governments, although some critics claim that they are a de-facto level of government.
Critics argue that homeowner associations establish a new community as a municipal corporation without ensuring that the residents governed will have a voice in the decision-making process.
-Wikipedia
PS: Homeowner associations are only “voluntary” in the sense that a person can choose to live in a given neighborhood or not, the same way that a person can choose to live in a given city or not. If you live in a neighborhood with an association, you don’t get to choose whether the associations regulations apply to you or not.
The Portland planners faced a revolt in Damascus, because Metro and the planners forgot to ask the people, that owned the property, what they wanted.
What the planners saw as a blank slate, was in reality peoples property!
Private property rights, always seem to be getting in the way of the Planners dream.
If there was only a way to get around the peoples rights to live where they want to live, in a way they want to live.
Home owner associations do have votes don’t they. Can’t you and your neighbors that belong to the association, change the rules?
That would be a lot harder to do in a city.
My parents love their homeowners association that bans parking outside of garages and painting and other rules.
My parents love their homeowners association that bans parking outside of garages
But what about people who WANT to park outside of garages? Why should someone else get to tell them where they can and can’t park?
They have the choice to move in or not, the area is not that big and less than 5 blocks from there they can park outside on the street.
I think it can be called diversity
They have the choice to move in or not
Just as people can choose whether to live in (e.g.) Portland or not.
If antiplanners support (which they appear to do) the notion that homeowner associations should be able to tell people in the neighborhood what they can and can’t do with “their land”, they lose the moral highground to criticize governments for doing the same thing.
PS: It’s funny to hear antiplanners saying that if people don’t like the homeowner association rules, they can move somewhere else. Antiplanners would vilify planners for making that kind of argument.
You could have hundreds or thousands of different homeowners associations in one city.
Portland has changed the rules in the middle of the game. I bought my house long before there was a Metro or Smart growth policies. The Damascus area has been mostly rural farm, pastures and open space long before the planners discovered it as a blank canvas to build a new city.
FORGETTING ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT HAD ALREADY MOVED THERE.
They already decided to move outside of Portland, knowing what the zoning was before the Smart growth planners and Metro tried to shove down their throats a new vision of their Properties.
By rezoning it with the planners vision and a few of the property owner. Not all the Property Owners or affected Properties.
That is why they revolted.
“Metro planners insisted on having a plan. ”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the State of Oregon mandated such plans. I think Florida does as well. Still government planning, but hardly the fault of the local planning staff.
“Metro planners insisted on having a plan. ”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the State of Oregon mandated such plans. I think Florida does as well. Still government planning, but hardly the fault of the local planning staff.
“You could have hundreds or thousands of different homeowners associations in one city.”
You guys and your Tebault. Weather you are forced to move 20 miles to the next town or 20 blocks to the next neighborhood, because you don’t believe in the local politics via. zoning or HOA, the outcome is the same… Your Pissed! The point is, that despite all of the antiplanner assertions, people want, and will, regulate the land. We could get rid of planners and zoning, and HOA’s or some other form of control would take over and limit what you could do with your property just like they did in Houston. BTW, there are plenty of people that are pissed off about their deed restrictions in H-town, mainly because there is no PLAN (i.e. rhyme or reason) indicating why such restrictions exist.
The sun will never set on government planning. Sorry to rain on your parade.
Bennett
I will not respond to any of your posts, after your name calling a few days back.
So from now on when you put words into my post that are not there, or tell me how I think. There will be no response. bye
The planning and architectural world has something called “precedent”. Would an antiplanner/libertarian please point me to such a city, let alone a community, that was built on this concept where the residents/businesses built whatever they wanted with no regulation, planning, road layouts, etc? You see planners, architects, and even new urbanists have gone beyond theory into what’s called “reality”. Were they all correct in their assertions? Of course not, mistakes arise along the way, and there is much to critique of the field(s).
I just find it so funny that Washington DC, our nation’s capital was an incredibly well-planned city (with strict building regulations).
Did Metro miss some things in its Damascus expansion? Probably, but that’s not to say that some of the citizens were wrong too.
Sierra Plantation: Sienna Plantation is a 10500 acre master planned community. These plans definitely needed to meet approval of the city engineer and planner.
“The claim that infrastructure is a barrier is a red herring. As the Antiplanner has shown here, developers in the Houston area manage to install sewer, water, and roads themselves and provide land for schools, parks, and other facilities. Developers pass the cost onto home and other property buyers, who pay it off over a 30-year period. Property owners also pay for their own schools, park improvements, and so forth. The financial tools used are interesting but hardly complicated. Under Oregon law, developers or the county could create special service districts to take care of the finances.”
This is something that has only started occurring for the last 20 or so years. A lot of fringe communities were developed from everyone’s funds to pay for schools, infrastructure, etc.
I’m a Damascus resident with a 5 acre farm. The land area, 10,300 acres, includes steep, forested hill slopes, some mapped as unstable, wetlands, streams, working farms, a “downtown” that is basically a strip mall, and a number of pre-state land use system subdivisions with lots of an acre or less.
Those who argue against conservation of steep slopes, streams, wetlands and floodplains are arguing for what exactly? That we build over every acre? Few people who live here want that. Most look east to Happy Valley, which conserved almost nothing in a similar landscape and we shrink back in horror. Happy Valley let the developers plan the city, as the anti-planner suggests. We tried that experiment and it failed. Better to take the time needed, plan well, and have strict oversight.
There are ways to even out economic gains by zoning for development transfers. An individual with 10 acres of steep land that should not be built on could sell his or her development rights to someone on the valley floor who would build greate density there. If we can stop fighting amongst ourselves long enough to sit down and work it out as neighbors, this is a solvable problem. But if ideology takes over, forget it. We will be Gazans and Israelis.
And arguing against “planning” is ridiculous. There is going to be a plan done before things get built. That is state law, and 9000 Damascans are not going to get state law changed.
ws wrote:
Would an antiplanner/libertarian please point me to such a city, let alone a community, that was built on this concept where the residents/businesses built whatever they wanted with no regulation, planning, road layouts, etc?
Quick!
We need an ideologue to change the subject!
DS
But seriously, of course ideologues can’t come up with this condition, as their ideology can’t compete on the ground.
This reality of ideological failure has existed, wrt built environments, for millenia, as this interesting post explains in great detail.
DS
“If antiplanners support (which they appear to do) the notion that homeowner associations should be able to tell people in the neighborhood what they can and can’t do with “their landâ€Â, they lose the moral highground to criticize governments for doing the same thing.”
That’s not true.
That said, buying into that paradigm it still seems an odd position to take to argue that a wrong is somehow okay because of another wrong.
HOAs are merely private government run by amateurs with no experience. That’s why, in my view, the small-minority ideologues prefer them, as they can be easily duped.
DS
HOAs are merely private government run by amateurs with no experience
…and are not subject to the Constitutional constraints that public government must abide by.
Homeowners’ Associations, including those within Gated Communities, are frequently vilified for the rules they make and of course Gated Communities are vilified for “excluding” the general public.
But Homeowners’ Associations in High Rise Condominia and Apartments are apparently acceptable. Here they are known as Body Corporates and they too have strict rules and can even tax their members for maintenance etc. I do not believe these Body Corporates have the constitutional protections afforded via Councils but there is always the common law.
Similarly no one seems to object to the fact that Condominia are Gated Communities and in many cases you cannot even see through the gates.
It seems that we have an Orwellian situation where “Vertical good” – Horizontal Bad”.
How come?
craig Says:
They have the choice to move in or not, the area is not that big and less than 5 blocks from there they can park outside on the street.
I think it can be called diversity
THWM: You make sound like throw back to Jim Crow.
Yep, that has to be it, telling someone not to park outside a garage or what color to paint a home, is the same as Jim Crow.
Wow! How could anyone argue with that. I give up you win again.
UGBs are typical of governmental methods that mess with the free-market by attempts to improve conditions, yet worsen them, particularly by increasing the price of housing.
Coercion, reducing freedom & restricting property rights have many adverse effects & hurt the quality of life. For those of you who like big government, don’t go to the extreme and say anarchy is bad; of course it is. Limited, non-intrusive government, responsive to the public (not to special interests nor individuals) is the aim.
The housing bubble was caused by restrictive zoning & added fees. The planners & local politicians in about 10 states are responsible for the beginning of what became the current financial crisis. It is true that speculation & loose lending standards (pushed by Congress) exacerbated the situation.
craig said: Yep, that has to be it, telling someone not to park outside a garage or what color to paint a home, is the same as Jim Crow.
JK: Not to mention the lack of intellect exhibited by anyone who would confuse Jim Crow laws with laws about parking. Just shows how mentally deficient planners really are.
Thanks
JK
Why should some people in a neighborhood get to tell other people in the neighborhood what they can and can’t do with their land?
Why should some people in a neighborhood get to tell other people in the neighborhood what they can and can’t do with their land?
D4P
——
They don’t, if you don’t move into a home owner association.
I don’t live in one
My parents have lived in two now and they love their home in a area that has restrictions on color of houses, parking and keeping your yard up. That is how they like to live, that is why they picked a house in that area to live in it.
I don’t understand why people are oppose to choice and the freedom to pick a HOA to live in.
This is completely different from Metro mandating density in Damascus and rezoning this mostly rural area.
One is a choice before you move in, the other is a mandate after you bought your property.
Craig,
Sorry.
-Bennett
Homeowner associations can change rules too, after people have already purchased their homes. The rules in place when you purchase your home are not permanent: they are subject to change.
I ask again:
Why should some people in a neighborhood get to tell other people in the neighborhood what they can and can’t do with their land?
Why should some people in a neighborhood get to tell other people in the neighborhood what they can and can’t do with their land?
D4P
—–
Because some people choose to live in a neighborhood that allows it, it is called choice and it is allowed because we have free will to choose for our selves if we want it or not.
If the rules are too strict, no one would buy in. So they find a balance that the buyers want. And the rules can be modified with in the association to add or throw out a rules by a vote of the association.
Unlike how Metro has changed the Rules in Damascus without asking the property owners.
Again my Parents love their association. I prefer not to live that way.
Because some people choose to live in a neighborhood that allows it, it is called choice and it is allowed because we have free will to choose for our selves if we want it or not.
This doesn’t really answer the question, unless you want to acknowledge that this statement also applies to cities, states, countries, etc.
Antiplanners routinely object to government land use regulations on the basic principle that they limit freedom (i.e. they involve one set of persons telling another set what they can and can’t do with their land). Yet, for some reason, antiplanners seem to discard this principle within the context of homeowner associations. Which, from my perspective, means that they must either come up with a separate reason for opposing government land use regulations, or they should oppose homeowner associations as well.
But Homeowners’ Associations in High Rise Condominia and Apartments are apparently acceptable.
The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. One appreciates the consistency of some commenters here.
Because some people choose to live in a neighborhood that allows it
Here on the Front Range Colorado, if you want a house built after, say, 1985, it’s pretty much live in a place with an HOA or don’t move here.
So there are a whole bunch of little private governments around here. It’s good for me in a sense, because I get some of my work from the Metro District in which I live – see, some of our assessment goes to me, because the Board has no clue what to do in a number of situations. Lots of consultancy fees come out of the assessments. Lately, these fees are to assess the damage done by the poorly-crafted Developer Agreement. If I wanted to sound like an a-hole about it, I’d say the abdication of th’ regalayshun is cheaper in the short run, and privately more expensive in the long run.
DS
Scott: “The housing bubble was caused by restrictive zoning & added fees. The planners & local politicians in about 10 states are responsible for the beginning of what became the current financial crisis. It is true that speculation & loose lending standards (pushed by Congress) exacerbated the situation.”
This is not entirely true, in fact states without much control of development were the ones who are hurting the most Pheonix and Las Vegas had exponential growth and (high home prices) and their bubble burst. Cities such as Houston didn’t have a bubble to burst in the first place – it’s not like people are vying to live there.
What the heck are you talking about ws?
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2008/07/07/daily32.html
More people moved to Houston than to any other large city in the United States in the 12 months up to July last year, according to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau.
http://housingdoom.com/2008/06/16/phoenix-population-boom-false/
There is plenty of money for infrastructure in Metro’s growth areas.
The most expensive areas are predicted to cost $300,000 per acre to serve with the dream infrastructure (you’ve seen it, lots of public art, fountains, fancy cobblestone, etc.).
Land values in many areas went from $10,000 per acre to $500,000 per acre when development got approved. These land owners can afford to only make 1000% on their land rather than 5000%.
ws wrote:
I just find it so funny that Washington DC, our nation’s capital was an incredibly well-planned city (with strict building regulations).
That is no thanks to the current municipal government of the District of Columbia.
Speaking of Washington (in this case the state of Washington), I have to wonder how many persons and jobs ended crossing the Columbia River to southern Washington instead of locating in Damascus (thus avoiding the hassles associated with Portland Metro entirely).
Sometimes called “voting with their feet.”
Dan wrote:
Here on the Front Range Colorado, if you want a house built after, say, 1985, it’s pretty much live in a place with an HOA or don’t move here.
So there are a whole bunch of little private governments around here. It’s good for me in a sense, because I get some of my work from the Metro District in which I live – see, some of our assessment goes to me, because the Board has no clue what to do in a number of situations. Lots of consultancy fees come out of the assessments. Lately, these fees are to assess the damage done by the poorly-crafted Developer Agreement. If I wanted to sound like an a-hole about it, I’d say the abdication of th’ regalayshun is cheaper in the short run, and privately more expensive in the long run.
The same can be said of homes built in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. since about 1980, including my home of Montgomery County, Maryland, which is, along with Baltimore County, Maryland, perhaps the birthplace of Smart Growth in the United States.
Yes, CP, if you want to eliminate waste, private amateur governments aren’t the way to go either. But at least they help me keep the lights on and student loans paid…
DS
DS —> Do you think the shift to HOA’s on the Front Range is because of Colorado’s lack of townships? Because lots of big developers came in to develop? I’m curious what’s driving them. They’re around in MN but don’t seem to be as pervasive as out here.
Oooh, good question. I always just thought that gummint was gittin out the way and lettin th’ people/market/whatever govern. I’ll have to think about that for a while…
DS
ws: You do agree that local housing controls have added fees &/or restricted supply to raise home prices. Then you go on that some markets, Phoenix & Las Vegas, with less control are hurting the most. I’m trying to figure out what you mean; it’s basically a non-sequitor, trying to make implications. Prices fell a lot, so what? If those 2 markets have fallen a lot, what is that supposed to be indicative of?
Both markets do not have housing prices much above the housing median. Las Vegas is kind of a special case because just about all of the undeveloped land surrounding the urbanized area is owned by the BLM. It’s like a de-facto UGB. BTW, Las Vegas is the 6th most dense UA. Both of those areas have had the largest percentage population increases, among large UAs, for many years. It’s possible that the natural market cannot keep up with demand of that magnitude.
Elaboration on my point: The growth-restrictive markets drove the housing price increases. Particularly, the housing markets in California, Portland, the Northeast & some of Florida screwed things up. Speculation & easier loans (driven by Congress) furthered increases.
It is unusual that Phoenix housing increased in prices as much as they did.
Scott, your assertions in 46 have been refuted numerous times here.
Namely: find some studies that quantified the amount of increase due to UGBs and for other factors. (Hint: Florida).
DS
Dan, you must be kidding, or just low on education & knowledge.
UGBs & similar types of restrictions reduce supply, thereby raising prices. It’s a basic economic principle. There are many studies out there that prove that. You can look at almost any market & see. BTW there are other reasons that prices rise. It’s a logical fallacy to say that because other causation exists, the main forcing does not exist.
Here’s an example on housing price-push: Austin has housing restrictions & above average home prices. No other TX cities have similar restrictions & all those others have below average home prices.
“Each town should have a park, or rather a primitive forest, of five hundred or a thousand acres, where a stick should never be cut for fuel, a common possession forever, for instruction and recreation. All Walden Wood might have been preserved for our park forever, with Walden in its midst…” Henry David Thoreau 1859
Scott 48:
Dan, you must be kidding, or just low on education & knowledge.
Son, you’re out of your league.
I note that despite your utterance about ‘many studies’, you don’t provide one. As I said, I’ve refuted this tired talking point many times here, asserted much more cogently than your try above. I gave you a hint in 47, which you don’t seem to understand.
DS