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

Mon Jul 7 10:36:37 PDT 2008

Good points. Robinson Trailer Park is vary nice.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: keely emerinemix kjajmix1 at msn.com
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 13:43:27 -0700
To: Tom Hansen thansen at moscow.com,  donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com, vision2020 at moscow.com,  Saundra Lund sslund_2007 at verizon.net
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Could it -- or has it -- Happen in this Area?

> 
> Thanks, Tom.  The article below tells an interesting story . . . one that reminds me of an exchange I had a few years ago with a former neighbor and current elected official over a "trailer park" planned near Lenville Drive, across the highway from where I used to live.
> 
> He was passing around a petition to deny the development of a large park whose planned included a very high number of mobile homes on very tiny, narrow lots.  My former neighbor complained bitterly that he hadn't bought a nice house on a nice lot in a nice neighborhood so he could look over across the highway and see a bunch of "g--damned metal boxes" packed together.  When I asked him if he realized how a well-run, intelligently planned mobile home park can be a real boon to young families, low-income workers, and senior citizens, he huffed that he didn't care; those damned trailer courts were full of crime and junk, etc.
> 
> The thing is, I did sign his petition -- for very different reasons from his, and only after a near-shouting match on my doorstep.  The lackluster planning and extraordinarily high lot density virtually guaranteed problems for both residents and their neighbors, confirming through the sheer volume of people, homes, and lots on very little space every prejudice my neighbor felt toward the "blight" of trailer dwellers and their "g--damned" metal boxes.  I would have considered it a privilege to have signed a petition welcoming the development of a well-planned mobile court with a reasonable degree of attention to the orderly, sufficient, fair portioning of space.  In fact, I pass Robinson Park every time I drive to or from my house, and I'm thankful to God for a bright, vibrant neighborhood full of small homes, young families, basketball hoops and tended lawns so close to my house.  It may be the only home some folks can ever buy, and I would raise hell if it were ever threa!
 tened by
a developer wanting to raze it in order to build another homogenized gameboard of McMansionettes.
> 
> Keely
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > To: kjajmix1 at msn.com; donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com; vision2020 at moscow.com; sslund_2007 at verizon.net
> > From: thansen at moscow.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Could it -- or has it -- Happen in this Area?
> > Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 17:24:35 +0000
> > 
> > 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/
> > 
> > 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> It�s a talkathon � but it�s not just talk.
> http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalk
>