12/10/01

The city of Portland is trying to take our property rights, and they are hiding the truth about it.

To learn more about Portland's "Healthy Portland Streams" proposal, I attended an "open house" sponsored by the Portland Bureau of Planning. Here is what I learned:

The city officials were there to talk, not to listen. Homeowners were frustrated that their opinions were not recorded. They were amazed that the Bureau has squandered precious time and taxpayer funds on a scheme that will probably end up in court. Measure 7 has a good chance to be upheld by a court, yet the Bureau wagered taxpayer money that it will fail. Moreover, they have no contingency plan in place to address the environmental concerns if the measure is upheld. They have spent the past year in denial, with their heads in the sand. What kind of "planning" is this?

People want clean water and healthy wildlife, but believe it is a big mistake to apply cumbersome restrictions that lower property values, without any kind of compensation. People want voluntary measures like information about smart erosion control and native plants, not heavy-handed regulations that make environmentally beneficial landscaping more expensive, or prohibited.

People were confused about the plan, and the city is to blame. Their flyers claim to explain what the restrictions are but leave out the worst: if your yard becomes a "Conservation Zone" you must leave at least half of your property "undisturbed." No vegetable gardens in the undisturbed portion. You can remove a dead tree, but must leave the trunk pieces in the yard to rot. Does anyone wonder why this might reduce property values?

There is more deception. They admit that there will be a new additional $300 city fee for review of your remodeling or landscaping plan, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. What they don't tell you is that the real cost comes when the homeowner must hire lawyers, consultants, and architects to generate all the paperwork and plans required under the scheme. An environmental consultant advises that even a simple permit process will cost $7000 to $10,000. Adding insult to injury, those under the most restrictive "Protection Zone" must pay an extra $2,500 fee to have plans reviewed. Why punish those who have already been forced to sacrifice the most property value?

One city flyer claims that the new zones will only affect "significant changes, such as cutting down MANY trees." The truth, as hidden in the 42-page regulations, is that even removal of a single tree is usually restricted or prohibited.

Environmental zones should be based on science and terrain. But city officials explained that the mysteriously serpentine boundaries were based on who owns what property, so that they could restrict as much as possible without paying compensation. If you own two adjacent lots, they take one, and leave you the other one so that you will have a harder time suing for loss of value. Gerrymandering based on "who's who" should be illegal.

Portland residents are not alone in being victims of the "Stream Scheme." Multnomah County officials handed control of unincorporated areas to the City. Those residents can't vote out the mayor or recall the City Council, but Portland officials can still take control of your property! A Washington County official informed me that they are planning similar restrictions, and are watching to see what happens in Portland, so be prepared for the worst.

This is not just about small effects on property values. One attendee paid $60,000 for a buildable lot, only to have it rendered nearly valueless by application of an environmental zone. She received no compensation, and our property taxes must now make up for this lost tax base.

The greenbelt lots that remain vacant in the hills will mean more unwanted row-houses and apartment buildings in other neighborhoods. If Portland density goals are to be met, other neighborhoods will lose their character.

The whole community benefits from a cleaner environment, and the community should share the cost. Asking a small group to give up their property rights violates fundamental fairness, and there are undoubtedly better alternatives to these arbitrary regulations.

(Bennet K. Langlotz of Southwest Portland is executive director of the United We Stand Foundation.)

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]