[Vision2020] Could it -- or has it -- Happen in this Area?

[Tom Hansen]

Along those lines, Keely -

Richard Carson, a former official of the Oregon APA Chapter and the editor 
of Oregon Planners' Journal, has written several essays concerning . . .

The Planning Profession
Land-Use Planning
The Costs of Growth
The No-Growth Movement
Environmental Planning
Economic Development
Citizen Involvement
Planning and Civic Journalism
Planning Prose and Humor
Housing and Density 

http://www.carsonessays.org/contents.html

My personal favorite is . . .

-------------------------------------

"Wicked Thoughts at a Public Hearing"
By Richard Carson

I am writing this during a public hearing for a planned unit development. 
I have seen more than my fair share of these hearings and I have come up 
with a few gross generalizations which I want to share with you. 

The ownership of property and the right to use it are fundamental tenants 
of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. However, these rights are 
often assumed to extend beyond a property owner's actual property line. 
The vacant lot next door may provide a neighboring property owner with a 
bucolic picture of nature; a buffer against the problems of urban living 
(like noisy neighbors); and screens off any unsightly and tacky 
residential amenities like above-ground pools, satellite dishes and the 
ever popular use of blue tarps that cover everything from wood piles to 
junk cars. 

The legal remedy to such problems is to buy the adjacent property, but 
that would mean not acquiring the more important basic human necessities 
like a big house, a big boat, a big screen T.V., and a big sports utility 
vehicle. Combine this backward set of priorities on how to spend money 
with the fact that people don't understand (or care) about the property 
rights of others, and it ultimately leads to litigation centered on a 
local land use decision. 

The outraged and uninformed neighbor spends money to hire a lawyer and 
possibly other experts to prove that a proposed development project is an 
abomination against nature (their nature) and violates all manner of codes 
and the comprehensive plan. This outrage results in an appeal of a staff 
or planning commission decision to the locally elected officials, and 
ultimately to a land use appellate board or a state court of appeals. 

In every state there is a cottage industry made up of professionals who 
make a living aiding and abetting such unhappy neighbors. I say "cottage 
industry" because many of these folks pride themselves on their anti-
establishment and a counter-culture lifestyle that is strangely at odds 
with the often gluttonous lifestyles of the property owners they 
represent. It is a perverse fact of life that instead of buying the now 
offending property, the neighboring property owner ends up financially 
supporting people he (or she) otherwise would shun. You know, like lawyers 
with names like Freedom Child. 

Of course there are occasionally development projects that may cause some 
real property damage to a neighbor. This could be through increased storm 
water runoff or geologic hazards. But many issues brought foward are 
simply an attempt to deprive the developer from his or her right to use 
their property within the legal development codes of the city, county or 
state. Most responsible and competent developers try to blunt such 
overreaction by talking to neighboring property owners early in the 
development process. Legal challenges can often be avoided by making 
concessions to the neighbor in terms of buffering or design. 

However, when a neighbor decides to become Don Quixote, it is usually we 
planners -- the "staff" -- who take the verbal abuse, telephone 
harassment, and get belittled and berated in the public meeting as being 
the developers dupes or just plain incompetent. There is of course the 
ever popular lack of notice. However, this never explains why the 
appellant is always there. There is also the "suspicious" fact 
that "critical" information is missing. This is usually some report, 
minutes or occasionally tapes of the meeting. 

These hearings usually result in comments by the neighbor about the 
different kind of subhumans who dare to want to live on 8,000 square foot 
lots, while the superior ones live on 10,000 square foot lots. The people 
of smaller lots (and morals) are said to increase crime, vandalism and let 
their dogs run around unleashed. And what happens when the neighbor can't 
make a legal, rational or even coherent argument? Then it's time to start 
waving petitions, applaud loudly and make catcalls. All of this is 
calculated to intimidate the elected officials into reversing a thoughtful 
decision out of fear of losing a handful of votes in an election. 

One of the great problems of a highly legalized land use planning system 
found in some states is that planning becomes contested on a variety of 
frivolous legal points. A project is not approved simply because it 
complies with the approved local government standards. Are there greater 
evils in a less legalistic and less adversarial planning system? Perhaps, 
but it hard to imagine it after sitting through 4-6 hours of mind numbing 
blather that is cloaked as being incredibly relevant testimony. 

For the record, and to placate the more savvy consultants, the more 
polished and establishment consultants fleece their corporate clients with 
equal zeal. Hey, it's a democracy!

-------------------------------------

Stay tuned, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow,
Idaho

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/