I find Mr. Vance’s editorial in the April 1, 2015 issue of The Reflector disingenuous at best.
His closing paragraph, “If that burdens county staff, costs us taxpayers money and presents challenges when it comes to the management of growth, that’s what we have to live with to right this wrong.”
This is in connection to his assertion that landowners of 20, 40, 80 acres, no matter where they are, should be able to develop it if they want to.
Picture this, Mr. Vance. A landowner owns 80 acres about a mile north of La Center and decides he wants to develop it. Currently only four homes could be built (assuming the 20-acre minimum).
Under Mr. Vance’s assertion, he should be able to build it to a higher density – he’s vague on that point – he states “within reason.” A definition of “within reason” would be helpful.
Regardless, under his scenario, the landowner gets the green light, he sells the land to a developer and the developer proceeds to build 300-400 homes on the 80 acres.
My questions to Mr. Vance are: Who’s going to provide sewage treatment to this new “community?” Who’s going to provide water to this new “community?” Who’s going to improve the rural roadway to accommodate the new influx of traffic? The county – who is already strapped with infrastructure costs it can’t handle? La Center – who has a very limited tax base and is struggling to deal with their own infrastructure needs?
It’s easy to say, and I paraphrase, “We need to right this wrong no matter what the cost to the taxpayers,” but I would argue the sensibility and acceptability of that approach.
Growth management has been and probably always will be difficult to accept based on “individual rights.” But what are the rights of those who are paying for someone else’s profit?
Dean Dossett
Camas
