It doesn't sound like Bend made it's case to the Oregon about the UGB. (The following quotes from the Bulletin.)
What I noticed is -- how specific and telling and convincing the state's arguments are.
1.) "...the city has not planned for enough affordable housing."
2.) "...or proposed an adequate amount of 'infill.'"
3.) "...the amount of land the city wants to bring is is excessive..."
Pretty cogent.
Whereas the city's argument seemed to dwindle down to a "special needs" argument. An amorphous,' we're special and we're different' sort of appeal.
Summed up, by City Councilor Barrams comment, that the draft needs to be "sensitive to the area we live in."
You know, I tried those kinds of arguments with teachers who gave me a low grade on a paper. How different my paper was, and how it was 'sensitive' to some special need it was and such.
Sometimes it even worked, you know. Like the teacher would just sigh and say, 'O.K. I'll give you a C.'
Maybe Bend will wear down the state; they'll just sigh and say, 'It's your town. You have to live in it.'
P.S. I think there are indeed 'special' circumstances -- otherwise known as 'special interests.'
I'll be willing to bet that the state is aware that there are landowners who had more influence over the process than they should have. That's a bit more speculative on my part.
**********
I hate to be cynical (Who Me?), but the city wrapping the BAT into the regional transit system seems like a way to pawn the problem off on someone else.
I predict, the city will pay for the move for a couple of years, (as agreed) but when the regional system can't make it work, the larger entity will come back to the taxpayer for a bond, which is what should have happened in the first place (and did and got voted down) and likely will be voted down again but the city will shrug and say, "Hey, we did what we could..."
Or the problem will be put far enough into the future that the voters will actually decide to support a transit system, or enough federal and state money will become available to keep some sort of minimal system alive. Possibly. Though, with the economy the way it's likely to be for the foreseeable future, I doubt it'll make the grade.
Overall though, I'd have to say it's a FAIL.
This is not a judgment on the worthiness of public transport, but on it's planning and execution.
What I noticed is -- how specific and telling and convincing the state's arguments are.
1.) "...the city has not planned for enough affordable housing."
2.) "...or proposed an adequate amount of 'infill.'"
3.) "...the amount of land the city wants to bring is is excessive..."
Pretty cogent.
Whereas the city's argument seemed to dwindle down to a "special needs" argument. An amorphous,' we're special and we're different' sort of appeal.
Summed up, by City Councilor Barrams comment, that the draft needs to be "sensitive to the area we live in."
You know, I tried those kinds of arguments with teachers who gave me a low grade on a paper. How different my paper was, and how it was 'sensitive' to some special need it was and such.
Sometimes it even worked, you know. Like the teacher would just sigh and say, 'O.K. I'll give you a C.'
Maybe Bend will wear down the state; they'll just sigh and say, 'It's your town. You have to live in it.'
P.S. I think there are indeed 'special' circumstances -- otherwise known as 'special interests.'
I'll be willing to bet that the state is aware that there are landowners who had more influence over the process than they should have. That's a bit more speculative on my part.
**********
I hate to be cynical (Who Me?), but the city wrapping the BAT into the regional transit system seems like a way to pawn the problem off on someone else.
I predict, the city will pay for the move for a couple of years, (as agreed) but when the regional system can't make it work, the larger entity will come back to the taxpayer for a bond, which is what should have happened in the first place (and did and got voted down) and likely will be voted down again but the city will shrug and say, "Hey, we did what we could..."
Or the problem will be put far enough into the future that the voters will actually decide to support a transit system, or enough federal and state money will become available to keep some sort of minimal system alive. Possibly. Though, with the economy the way it's likely to be for the foreseeable future, I doubt it'll make the grade.
Overall though, I'd have to say it's a FAIL.
This is not a judgment on the worthiness of public transport, but on it's planning and execution.