AMENDS CHARTER: PROHIBITS INCREASED DENSITY IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS; REQUIRES REPORTS
QUESTION: Shall Metro Charter: Prohibit increased density in existing neighborhoods; require report to residents on proposed Urban Growth Boundary changes?
SUMMARY: Amends Metro Charter’s regional planning provisions to prohibit Metro from requiring density increase in identified single-family neighborhoods. Requires report to residents on effects of certain proposed Urban Growth Boundary amendments on existing residential neighborhoods, including impacts on traffic and parks. Requires report be provided to residents within one mile of proposed Urban Growth Boundary amendments and to all cities and counties within Metro. Measure becomes effective instead of Ballot Measure 26-11 if it obtains more affirmative votes. Requires revote in 2014 to remain effective.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
This measure refers to voters proposed amendments to provisions of the Metro Charter dealing with Regional Planning Functions. The measure prohibits Metro from requiring increased density in identified existing single-family neighborhoods.
Currently, Metro performs required land-use planning activities under Oregon’s land-use planning program. Oregon law authorizes Metro to adopt “functional plans” addressing matters that affect responsible development of greater metropolitan Portland. Metro may recommend or require changes to local governments’ comprehensive land use plans and to ordinances that implement those plans.
In 1996, after consulting with the Region’s elected officials, Metro exercised its authority by adopting the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, which sets forth performance standards for increasing housing supplies. These standards require an increase of capacity for housing inside the Urban Growth Boundary before considering any further boundary expansion. The standards also allow cities and counties to increase housing densities selectively in areas that local governments determine are most suitable for future development.
In 1997, Metro adopted the Regional Framework Plan, which contains housing supply standards that parallel those of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and also identifies certain neighborhoods as “inner” or “outer” neighborhoods. The Urban Growth Management Functional Plan is now part of the Regional Framework Plan. This measure would require certain changes to the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and the Regional Framework Plan. The Metro Council must implement those changes within one year if this measure is adopted.
The proposed measure amends the Metro Charter to require that the Regional Framework Plan “protect the livability of existing neighborhoods.” In doing so, Metro must consider factors including air and water pollution, crime, and the provision of an adequate police, fire, transportation and emergency services, as well as public utilities, and access to parks, open space and neighborhood services.
The measure prohibits the Regional Framework Plan from requiring an increase in the density of existing single-family neighborhoods inside the urban growth boundary that are identified in the plan solely as “Inner” or “Outer” neighborhoods.
The proposed measure requires that before approving any amendment to the urban growth boundary in excess of 100 acres the Metro Council must prepare a report on the effect of the proposed amendment on existing residential neighborhoods. The report must address traffic patterns, the potential addition of parks and openspace protection to benefit existing and future residents of the added territory; and the costs to existing residents of providing public services to the additional area. The report must be provided to all households within one mile of the proposed urban growth boundary amendment area and to all cities and counties within Metro.
The measure provides that if both it and Ballot Measure 26-11 are approved, only the measure with the greater number of affirmative votes will become effective. This measure is repealed on June 30, 2015, unless a majority of voters in the 2014 general election vote to retain it.
Submitted by:
Mike Burton
Metro Executive Officer
Measure 26-29 | Metro
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Join your friends, neighbors and elected officials and vote YES on Measure 26-29!
Measure 26-29 is a responsible action to guarantee our region’s livability and our quality of life. As local elected officials, we urge you to join us in supporting a measure that will truly protect neighborhoods AND our precious farmland. Measure 26-29 meets the needs of the entire metro area for this generation and the next.
Mayors:
Jim Bernard, Milwaukie
Judi Hammerstad, Lake Oswego
Eugene Grant, Happy Valley
John Williams, Oregon City
David Dodds, West Linn
Rob Drake, Beaverton
Charlotte Lehan, Wilsonville
Mark Cottle, Sherwood
Richard Kidd, Forest Grove
Wade Byers, Gladstone
Jan Drangsholt, King City
Vera Katz, Portland
Paul Thalhofer, Troutdale
Roger Vonderharr, Fairview
County Commissioners:
Michael Jordan, Clackamas
Dick Schouten, Washington City Councilors:
Brian Newman, Milwaukie
Mary King, Milwaukie
Ed Dennis, Hillsboro
Charlie Hales, Portland
Dan Saltzman, Portland
METRO Councilors:
Rod Park
Carl Hosticka
Rex Burkholder
David Bragdon
Rod Monroe
Bill Atherton
The following organizations and individuals also urge you to join them and vote YES on Measure 26-29.
The Washington County Farm Bureau
John Russell, Russell Development
Northwoods Nursery
Ted Kyle, Chair of the METRO Citizen Involvement Committee
Mike Burton, METRO Executive
Oregon Environmental Council
Oregon League of Conservation Voters
1000 Friends of Oregon
Sierra Club, Oregon Chapter
Save our Wild Salmon
National Wildlife Federation
Trout Unlimited
The Bicycle Transportation Alliance One Green World
Carl Abbott, PSU Urban Planning Professor
Sy Adler, PSU Urban Planning Professor
Deborah Howe, PSU Urban Planning Professor
Nancy Chapman, PSU Urban Planning Professor
Charles Heying, PSU Urban Planning Professor
Connie Ozawa, PSU Urban Planning Professor
AFSCME Council 75
Oregon AFL-CIO
Northwest Oregon Labor Council
(This information furnished by Roger Gray, Yes on 26-29 Committee)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.
Measure 26-29 | Metro
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Washington County Farm Bureau and vFarmers Around the Metro Area
Urge a YES Vote on 26-29
As family farmers who depend on the farmland in the Metro region for our livelihood, we urge you to vote YES on Measure 26-29.
- Measure 26-29 Protects Some of Oregon’s Most Productive Farmland Measure 26-29 ensures we do not recklessly lose farmland to development. It respects the last 20 years of work by farmers, citizens, cities, and the region to protect both neighborhoods and farmland. The farmland in the Metro area is among the most productive farmland in Oregon, and some of the best farmland in the world. Measure 26-29 helps ensure Metro does not lose the ability to protect it from unchecked sprawling development.
- Measure 26-29 Supports Our Farming Economy Agriculture is critical to the region’s economy. Clackamas and Washington Counties are two of the top five agricultural counties in the state, and Multnomah is 15th. Combined, farmers in the three counties contribute over $900 million to the region’s economy each year. Measure 26-29 requires a careful study before expanding the urban growth boundary, protecting both farmland and the neighborhoods in the area that could be harmed by traffic or higher taxes.
- Measure 26-29 Protects Our Jobs and Livelihood. Farmland in the Metro area provides thousands of jobs for our farming families, and the many more thousands of jobs that depend on farm production – jobs threatened by the extreme Measure 26-11, but protected by the responsible alternative of Measure 26-29.
Please Vote YES on Measure 26-29
Our Farms Depend on It
Washington County Farm Bureau
Jim Gilbert
Northwoods Nursery
Clackamas County Marcus Simantel
Retired Farmer
Multnomah County Lorraine Gardner
One Green World
Clackamas County
(This information furnished by Roger Gray, Yes on 26-29 Committee)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.
Measure 26-29 | Metro
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
If you care about protecting our children, our communities, and our future…
Vote YES on Measure 26-29 and NO on 26-11!
Like you, I care about the condition of our neighborhoods, schools, downtown areas and family farms. We support the work of citizens and local governments that has made the Portland region an example for the rest of the country on how to plan for growth and limit the negative consequences of urban sprawl.
But this community – our community, your community – is under attack.
Measure 26-11 is a direct attack on twenty years of work by citizens and local governments to protect neighborhoods and farmland by preventing uncontrolled development.
Let’s make no mistake about it. Measure 26-11 is an irresponsible and unworkable initiative aimed at busting open the Urban Growth Boundary and paving over the farmland and open space that has made Oregon beautiful.
Vote for land use principles that have stood the test of time and will continue to protect our children’s way of life in the Portland metro area.
Measure 26-29 prohibits Metro from increasing density in existing single family neighborhoods.
Measure 26-29 is a responsible action by Metro to guarantee livability in our neighborhoods.
Join me and vote YES on Measure 26-29!
Dan Saltzman, Portland City Commissioner
(This information furnished by Roger Gray, Yes on 26-29 Committee)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.
Measure 26-29 | Metro
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Measure 26-29 protects neighborhoods AND farmland without allowing unchecked sprawl.
Vote YES on Measure 26-29!
Protect the livability of our neighborhoods.
Measure 26-29 prohibits Metro from increasing density in existing single family neighborhoods. Vote YES!
Measure 26-29 requires Metro to notify nearby property owners if adding land to the urban growth boundary will increase traffic in adjacent neighborhoods or if their taxes will be spent for services like new roads and sewers. Vote YES!
Measure 26-29 recognized the dynamic nature of growth policy and provides a revote in 12 years. Vote YES!
Measure 26-29 is clear and concise, allowing the citizens to vote on a measure that will not be tied up the courts. Vote YES!
Jim Gilbert, Northwoods Nursery
Ted Kyle, Chair of the METRO Citizen Involvement Committee
(This information furnished by Roger Gray, Yes on 26-29 Committee)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.
Measure 26-29 | Metro
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Our work is to study cities. Our responsibility, as teachers at a public university, is to help students and citizens understand what makes cities and regions succeed – or fail. We are fortunate to live and work in a place that is more successful than most. Students from all over the U.S come here to learn how citizens, working together, are creating livable cities within a coherent region. Our fellow scholars elsewhere remind us of our particular strengths: vibrant neighborhoods and active neighborhood organizations – local governments that work together – an engaged citizenry that takes responsibility for the future of our region.
Of the two METRO charter amendments you are asked to consider, we believe that one of these, Measure 26-29, does a better job of protecting the values that have led to the success of our cities and region. Measure 26-29 places responsible limits on METRO’s ability to increase density in existing single family neighborhoods. By doing this, Measure 26-29 balances the desire of residents to protect the quality of their neighborhoods with the need of local governments to work together.
We urge you to vote NO on Measure 26-11 because it undermines the ability of METRO to prevent uncontrolled development and sprawl. We urge you to vote YES on Measure 26-29 because it continues our tradition of responsible stewardship.
Carl Abbott
Professor – Urban Studies and Planning
Sy Adler
Professor – Urban Studies and Planning
Nancy Chapman
Professor – Urban Studies and Planning
Deborah Howe
Professor – Urban Studies and Planning
Charles Heying
Associate Professor – Urban Studies and Planning
Connie Ozawa
Associate Professor – Urban Studies and Planning
(This information furnished by Roger Gray, Yes on 26-29 Committee)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.
Measure 26-29 | Metro
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Read Section 2 of Measure 26-29 – It takes away your vote!
Measure 26-29 is all about Section #2
Metro wants to maintain their power to force high housing densities into your neighborhood – but they don’t want to tell you that. Measure 26-29 is about fooling you into repealing Measure 26-11 (The Neighborhood Preservation Act) – just read Section #2 of Measure 26-29
Section #2 guts notice to neighborhoods and guts protections from mandated increases in housing densities.
Measure 26-29:
Is poorly drafted
Will create years of litigation
Section #2 is just bad public policy
Send A Message To Metro Not to Play Games With Our Vote
Please Vote No On Measure 26-29
(This information furnished by Leigh Foxall)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.
Measure 26-29 | Metro
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Don’t Let Metro Gut Citizen Involvement –
Vote No On Measure 26-29
Goal 1 of our land use laws is supposed to be citizen involvement.
Measure 26-29 would overturn Measure 26-11 – leaving you with a lack of notice or control over proposed density increases in your community (See Section #2 of Measure 26-29).
The Metro Council and the narrow special interests groups that pushed Measure 26-29 need to be held accountable for attempting to mislead you.
The Metro Council’s decision to put this measure on the ballot, and to slip Section #2 into Measure 26-29, shows their lack of respect for citizen involvement
(This information furnished by Leigh Foxall)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.
Measure 26-29 | Metro
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Ask Yourself:
Why Did The Metro Council Put
Measure 26-29 On the Ballot?
Because they don’t want you to have control over increases in housing density in your community
Read Section 2 of Measure 26-29. It’s a sneaky attempt to overturn your vote. They know if they just told you that they want to continue to mandate more and more apartment complexes and row houses in your neighborhood, you would reject Metro’s arguments.
They drafted Measure 26-29, with language that sounds similar to Measure 26-11 – but really just repeals Measure 26-11!
That’s right, Measure 26-29, Section 2 repeals something you just voted on today.
Don’t let them take away your right to have notice of proposed densities increased in your neighborhood.
Please Vote No on Measure 26-29
(This information furnished by Steve Schopp)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.
Measure 26-29 | Metro
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Don’t Let Narrow Special Interest Groups Fool You
Please Vote No on Measure 26-29
Metro has been dominated for too long by special interests that make profit from high density mandates, rules and regulations.
Measure 26-29, Section 2 repeals your vote on the Neighborhood Preservation Act.
These special interest groups have created fancy names for themselves like “friends of” to fool you into voting against the livability of our region. These are actually front groups for interests that just want to mandate higher and high building densities in your area.
That’s why they are so scared of you having more say in the land use process.
1) Why would your “friends” have you vote against notifying you of proposed density increases?
2) Why would your “friends” have you vote against a study of the impacts of increased density on our schools and open spaces?
3) Why would your “friends” have you vote for your community having more control over how much housing density comes to your neighborhoods?
Why? Because they are “friends” of narrow special interests, not friends of the livability our region.
Section 2 of Measure 26-29 is a crafty attempt to try to fool the citizens of our region into repealing something you just voted on.
Look at Section 2 and then please vote no on Measure 26-29
(This information furnished by Larry George)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.
Measure 26-29 | Metro
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
DON’T BE A VICTIM OF METRO’S DECEPTION
Almost 50,000 people signed a petition to place the “Neighborhood Protection Act” (measure26-11) on this ballot to provide real protection against METRO’s forced high density. But METRO didn’t want density limits, so they created this phony measure that allows density increases in neighborhoods that METRO claims to protect and allows unlimited density in other areas.
DECEPTION DETAILS
If METRO honestly wanted to limit density, they would simply repeal their mandates, instead:
- METRO Included a sunset clause.
- METRO left many areas unprotected.
- METRO left out a density target rollback.
- METRO doesn’t stop density increases, but merely, limits METRO’s density target for certain areas to its current level.
- METRO prevents the people’s measure from being enacted if both pass, and METRO’s gets a few more votes.
METRO used the terms “inner neighborhoods” and “outer neighborhoods” to describe the allegedly protected areas, but HID the FACT that:
PROTECTED NEIGHBORHOODS ARE RIDDLED BY NON-PROTECTED AREAS:
- UNLIMITED density along most streets with frequent transit service: Sandy Blvd, Walker Rd., MLK, Baseline Rd., Belmont, Canyon Rd., Hawthorne, Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy., Fremont, Murry Blvd, Stark, 99W, East Burnside and many more.
- UNLIMITED density in the centers of “regional centers” and “town centers”: Gresham, Hillsboro, Beaverton, Gateway, Tigard, Milwaukie, King City, Hollywood, Happy Valley and Clackamus Town Center.
- UNLIMITED density: one mile circle centered on every light rail station all along Banfield, Burnside, Interstate and all the way to Hillsboro.
Do you live, work, shop or go into any of these areas?
If 26-29 passes, METRO will still be able to force UNLIMITED density on just about every major street in the region, You will endure more gridlock and pollution.
See www.StopMetro.com and www.ORTEM.org for details.
Is this your Portland? It isn’t mine!
Vote NO on 26-29 AND yes on 26-11.
Written and paid for by Jim Karlock, born & raised in Portland and saddened by those abominable five story condos infesting our beloved town.
(This information furnished by Jim Karlock)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.