After struggling through the static on Monday nights council broadcast I became concerned about a workshop issue being discussed and realized once again we may have to much government in our fair city.
Government which may just play a role in the failure of our city to remain stagnant in the growth of our commercial downtown zone as it is now.
After hearing testimony of problems business is facing today to make improvements on their own property I decided to read the entire Downtown Development plan and strategy.
Although it is all in all a good piece of legislation one section of it being "Develop architectural standards for all new construction and remodeling relating to the history of Cascade Locks"
Now I could fully understand this if this dealt with just city owned properties and projects but it does not.
It pertains to private owned businesses on private owned lands which I feel government has no right telling any land owner what style building they may and may not build or remodel. As long as that design meets the standards of our building codes.
I was always taught that government was to promote job creation not to be an obstacle to it.
When I see things like this in our government policy all it does is reassure me that government has no clue about business.
Let me explain.
When our government recognizes the importance of entrepreneurship to economic growth and their national/regional competitiveness or just a needed local service, and loosen regulations, along with implementing programs to support entrepreneurs then maybe this government will learn they can create jobs.
But when government is an obstacle, delayer, and an impediment to economic progress government needs to realize this and think about what they have done here.
When our government should be taking all possible steps to help get businesses to the launching pad, and reduce governmental obstacles to economic growth, especially the start-up costs that are levied on businesses and the cost of doing business in our city at all levels and our government does the opposite I have a problem with that.
Yet what we have here is a government policy that is contradictory to the imperatives of business ownership.
Every dollar they don’t have to turn over to government is a dollar that can be invested for future growth yet it seems that inflating the utility rates due to unjust expenditures raising the costs of doing business in our town not to mention the highest legal tax rates our business owners now pay is not enough and our government wants to control the identity and personality of private businesses and charge them $800.00 for it.
So it seems that our government does not understand that personality strengths and weakness when considered from the point of business are manifold. These strengths and weaknesses are the one to take a business towards success or failure.
Just like people, all businesses have a personality. Whether it is shallow and instrumental or deep, emotionally charged and outgoing
This personality is crucial. Why?
To put it boldly: personality is a key issue in our society. Look at politics in comparison: the popularity of politicians and government leaders is personality based.
Yet any governmental regulation such as this, that restricts what changes a business owner may or may not do to the building of a business to improve it is wrong.
If a business owner can apply for the permits and pass the inspection required to insure the public safety standards are met then what right does this city have to further insure that the personality of any business meets the one-dimensional dream that the city has?
Just the thought that all businesses should look like what the city wants is ludicrous.
Business is not a one-dimensional market and each business has its own unique personality.
Business is a two and three-dimensional market and that dimension is set by its own unique personality.
That personality is who and what they are.
Lets use Paul Allen's Rock-'N'-Roll Museum in downtown Seattle or the Space Needle there?
The City of Seattle would have made a great financial mistake to not allow these to be built in Seattle.
Having an identity means being what they are, following their own, determined, but individual path. Not the path of government.
Consumers of businesses relate with the identity of a business and that is the personality.
That personality is the business as that is their brand.
So what right does our government have imposing their dreams and controls on the free market place?
They have no right and they have no business legislating such rubbish which only harms our city.
What I believe this government needs to do is learn to manage their own businesses legally and morally and leave the market place to those willing to invest here and create jobs.
So what do you thank about this?
Cody
39 comments:
I never realized we had this and now that I do am in shock.
This reminds me of what goes on in third world countries.
If I could afford to move I would.
P.W.D.
This is a sure way to have an exorsim on businesses now and scare any future ones from coming to this town.
]
__]__
]
]
STAY AWAY-STAY AWAY-STAY AWAY
I've been thinking about this topic for a couple of days and it's brought to mind some questions.
While I understand how a "themed" downtown could in theory benefit the entire community, why do we feel that the entire burden of planning such a look should rest entirely on those with the misfortune of owning property on Wanapa St.? If it benefits us all shouldn't we all share equally in the extra costs associated with planning and enforcement? It seems more like a lets create some work (income) for the contracted city planner. Before you say "the city doesn't have the money" let me point out that this is a "city" initiative.
No money? Don't do it.
It's been in place since 2004. How involved are you with your government that you didn't realize it was there until now? BTW, it was adopted by the council not by the city staff.
Something for nothing
I am glad to know someone is thinking about this.
I also thought about what you said as well.
My problem is when and how do we draw the line between property owners rights and in this case business owners and governmental policy which conflicts with that right?
Yet in thinking about your point of view maybe there is a solution.
First and foremost what I put in front of all priorities is economic growth.
Well economic growth in our city has been, lets face it, in a state of depression for many decade's now.
So how can we stimulate it and entice business with an incentive to want to invest in our City.
Second I have to try and understand why the city has such a dream for the downtown zone.
Well I can truly only understand this reasoning if it pertained to governmental property or projects.
Then I would be fully on board with this.
Yet your statement of "benefits us all and would be willing to share the costs" I agree with you on if it is for a governmental project only as well as a possible alternative stated later.
I also agree with you that it must be done by initiative petition.
Yet take this piece of legislation and now lets turn it into a positive.
How about having this legislation for existing property owners and future commercial builders which benefits commercial developers or maybe all property owners and reward them for investing here under these standards.
For instance give a tax break for x amount of time for x amount of investment dollars to existing business owners to remodel using the standards of this legislation.
Take investments where new construction is on no developed property and give them x amount of time without incurring the building tax's for x amount of investment dollars it costs to build.
The city would still collect the property tax as it is now so what does the city loose.
Nothing. It gains as when the property is improved that value will go up and it will profit there. Just a piece of property which who knows how long it will remain just a piece of property paying only property tax's.
Then if the city were to petition the county for some of their cut that would sweeten it even further for investors.
The City could sweeten it more by enacting a provision of Oregon Public Law 96-501 and the Power Sales Contract with the Bonneville Power Administration to give utility breaks on these property owners to build to green construction standards. .
Then for every certification for each utility is met a utility break associated with that standard met would justify for a lower utility rate.
Oregon Public Law 96-501, is the law that allows municipal utilities to spend utility funds for non municipal uses.
Yet the restriction is, it must be used for renewable energy projects such as solar and wind or for energy conservation projects
One may even sweeten it further by giving a tax or rate break for every job created.
Now something like this, how could we go wrong?
Its a win for business, a win for government and a win for the citizens.
The only downfall at this time is, I would oppose any percentage added to my rates to pay for enactment of Oregon Public Law 96-501 until the city stopped illegally taking any and all of our electrical funds for all the other municipal uses they illegally use these electrical funds that has been going on for over 25 years now!!!!
All I can hope for is that our new council will look at these issues and fix what is wrong, realize what needs to change and put us in the right direction.
Cody
Anonymous.
I know it has been in place since 2004.
I am more involved in government here than government wants me to be I am sure of that.
The question's I now ask you are these.
Has this provision of our law helped stimulate the economy of our downtown zone?
Nada bit.
Has this provision brought any change in the look of our downtown zone?
Nada Bit of improvement besides normal upkeep and all changes that did occur harmed business owners.
Has this provision helped or hurt the commercial owners in our downtown zone?
Hurt financially as well as delayed any improvement and in fact is preventing a present owner from investing in a remodel.
Has this provision created any jobs?
Nada one.
Is this provision in the best interests of business owner's?
Nada bit.
Is this provision in the best interests of our city?
Nada bit.
Does this provision delay improvement in our downtown zone?
You betcha.
Does this provision create undue and unjust financial hardship on businesses present and future?
You betcha.
Does this provision violate the rights of business owners?
You bet it does.
I could go on and on and on and on.
I don't care who adopted it. This legislation was drafted and presented to council by the planning commission.
Once again that council had the little workshops using what was drafted by staff before them, talked a little about that written document and rubber stamped it through.
I remember very well. Same old thing in a different package.
Now in the present time staff brought this to council.
It seems to me staff is having a problem with this provision of law or it would not be before council, am I correct?
So maybe, just maybe, it needs to be addressed would't you say?
This blog subject is not about whether staff or council did it wrong. It's just plain wrong.
It's not about when it was done as it was done wrong.
This blog is about this provision of our laws which is not working and once again before council because it is flawed. It was flawed on enactment and now that flaw is a problem.
Where unlike previous councils had no concern for citizens input then, I now have hope that this new council will look at the issue's for what they are and listen with their minds.
Maybe we will have a council whom will take off the blinders and look outside of the box for a change.
Who knows but I can only hope for the sake of this city.
Maybe we will get a council whom will make the needed change, we so desperately need, stop all this senseless and unjust legislation and govern our city, with a hope of having a future, above what we have been left with, up until today.
Cody
You have more faith than I.
But maybe airing this dirty laundry as you are doing will help?
I just love it when you keep spanking them like you do.
I look forward to each new round.
Keep up the good work.
Faithless
I was in disbelief when I found out that although Mr. Potter had painted the roof of his building next to the Post Office a cheery blue that matched the Chevron station, he would have to change it to one of the "approved" colors but the Chevron did not have to change theirs.
Meanwhile the psuedo-Scandinavian look still exists on the Econo Lodge and in the structures of both the store and the CharBurger.
Why do we continually punish the businesses that we have? Although it is important to entice new businesses to come here, why drive away the ones we do have?
I understood that Lorang and Seeger told Mr. Potter to paint his roof. The Planning Commission approved Potter's frontage improvement. The Planner said nothing about his strong arm tactics in that meeting. The City Planner was told by the Committee to find a way to stop charging such insane permit fees. Anyone hear if he actually did?
Faithless
Like you I lost faith years ago. All I have is hope now.
Faith is a belief which would mean I would believe already.
I would like to believe but I do not have that faith.
So all I am left with is hope and a dream.
As for the rest only time will tell if this blog changes things along with my perspective.
The purpose of this blog is not to spank anyone.
It is only to raise awareness to not only the citizens but government that there may be a problem.
Cody
Anonymous November 11, 2010 6:11 PM
I was not aware of the paint restrictions Mr. Potter faced on his roof.
Concerning the Scandinavian Inn, Store and CharBurger as of now I would assume that they are grandfathered in.
But now for those business owners to change the appearance of their business would enact this provision of law on them.
This would restrict these businesses to the look of what the city wants it to look like as well as financially hurt them.
That would raise the cost of doing business for them.
These costs must be recovered so who pays for it in the end?
The customers of those business as business must pass those costs on to survive.
That increases the costs of consumer goods and services of all these businesses.
It is little things like this can make or break any business.
It is things like this that can halt upgrades and expansions and prevent business investment in our city.
Cody
I have another angle to consider as to why we there is no interest from prospective business owners. If I was a person looking to open a new business here and found out that there was a proposed casino in the works, I would run, not walk away from this community. Knowing that a casino/resort can undercut the prices of any other business, does not have to pay taxes, gets a break on liquor prices, etc. etc. I would run. Furthermore, most prospective investors/business owners would take a hard look at the community. Well, look around you. How many people have pride of ownership? Not many. There are broken down vehicles, yards full of junk, places badly in need of repair, etc. etc. I understand that times are tough, but some of these dumps have been that way for years and years. It is not inviting. Do we not have an ordinance about this? Where is the enforcement if there is? Couple all of this with closing our East end exit, the prospect of heavy truck & auto traffic through town & there is absolutely no incentive to establish a business in Cascade Locks. Those in power need to wake up or start humming a requiem because it is dying.
Anonymous November 11, 2010 8:54 PM
I have no idea if Lorang and Seeger told Mr. Potter to paint his roof as I was not there.
Yes the Planning Commission approved Mr. Potters improvement after Mr. Potter had already started the project and was ordered to stop work.
Yet it was revealed at the last council meeting that John Morgan went to Mr. Potter after Mr. Potter had already began improving the look of his business and threatened Mr. Potter with a work stop order as well as threatened to have him jailed.
This should all be in the minutes of Mondays council meeting and workshop session.
Now according to the Planning Commission Minutes for August 26 2010 it was John Morgan who brought this issue up to the planning commission.
You can read all we will ever know without being there on line here.
http://www.cascade-locks.or.us/vertical/Sites/%7BCBA69777-87EC-4CCE-94AE-A171F7FE7A86%7D/uploads/%7B969C7D90-8ED3-4188-8135-19F499651DF3%7D.PDF
Cody
A quick read through the the posts on this topic reveals why we have the problems we do.
Instead of focusing on determining if a problem exists and suggesting ideas to solve it, the conversation quickly degenerates to an opportunity to "take a shot" at someone or "it's your fault for not paying attention 7 years ago".
Who cares about the history, is the downtown plan effective and fair?
Can we make it effective and fair?
Should it only apply to new construction?
Has it had any positive impact on our city?
Has it had any negative impact on our city?
Should we just dump it and trust all property owners equally?
The real problem.
Ding, ding, ding, ding.
You get it.
Although we get it, the question that matters most is does council?
As for this council I would give it 4 to 3 odds against getting it.
All we can do is hope this new council gets it as well.
These are exactly the questions council should be asking and researching.
Thank you for speaking up!!!!
Cody
Now someone might not know Newton's laws of motion.
This someone I will refer to as X and X knows why already.
So for now we will skip the first 2 laws and get to the third law.
When a body (F) exerts a force on a second body (-F) this is known as the action-reaction law.
In other words for every action there is an equal or greater in magnitude reaction.
Now X when citizens like "the real problem" gets it along with the title name maybe you should ponder that.
Just chew on that concept awhile will you X?
Yet as "the real problem" points out in our history here, instead of doing the right thing, government is quick to "take a shot" at the persons suggesting ideas.
I would like to add persons suggesting government actions violate the laws and the powers allowed to government here.
So X when I get a call from the store last night that " X is down here talking s**t about you" and I find out all the details my public comment to you is prove it!!!
You have my email and if you forgot it is codysteelman@embarqmail.com
You have my phone number and if you forgot it is (541) 490-9273.
If you want to meet and go over the issues I would be happy to buy you a cup of coffee and talk about them.
Maybe had you done that in the beginning things would be different.
But all I got was ignored so what did you expect?
Which brings us back to Newton's third law.
An inaction is a reaction but not of force great enough to counter and balance the original force which only created a greater counter reaction to the original action.
Does this remind you of anything?
I'll give you a hint.
It is the mood of the Citizens v. the Government of Cascade Locks at this present time.
It's all physics X.
Next time try countering the force at its source.
You may have a better outcome than you did.
If you want to talk about it like an adult you have my contact information.
Cody
Cody, just a quick note that for some reason, no minutes or agendas will download as a separate page on our website.
CL has it somehow has set up that you must first access the website and then go to the right link. It is very annoying and frustrating.
Best to give folks a look at it by stating which document/date you need to access on the website, extremely annoying and yet, somehow when Kristi emails interested parties the minutes of the Port meetings, they come as a nice attachment.
My fear is that with all of our attention to the antics and direct negative impacts of our city government, we may be missing the key for sustainable change.
We have a small geographical mass with little more than 1,000 people. Yet, this town is divided into two government entities. The city and the port. The port has most of the areas resources in its column, including our waterfront and marine park, numerous significant downtown properties, the bridge, industrial property with rents, speculative residential properties, plus lots of rock to sell. It did have an island, until sold, and the revenues dissolved. The city has one resource, the human resource, all 1,000 of us and the responsibility to provide police and fire services, water and sewer service. It chooses, for the benefit of its citizens, to run its own municipal electric company(the tool used to turn that one resource, human, into hard cold spendable cash).
The citizens should think hard about the city's intention to capitalize on our water. The electric company hasn't turned out well for us. Can we trust the same officials who are abusing us with the electric company, with our most precious asset, our water?
Back to the port! We have a glorified parks service, and for that we pay dearly. Is it any wonder this city is constantly cannibalizing itself? We pay. The port rides and sits back on its pot of gold watching this government eat its citizens alive. If we are all waiting for this port to develop a sense of morality and step up to contribute to the very services that empower their ability to WHEEL AND DEAL, we will wait forever. Should we just wait another 10 years for the casino battle to play out? I believe it is past time for change. I'd be interested to hear other views.
Did anybody sign the recall petition yet? I heard one is going around already for the new council.
you obviously do not know Oregon law and do not watch the news about Portland a recall cannot occur until somebody has been in office for six months after being sworn in -- still licking those wounds are we?
Anonymous 9:11
No, you have to be careful what you sign the only recall I've heard of is for the one remaining of the infamous four and that would be Lance Masters!
The Port and the City are two separate entities. But they identical in one aspect, you elected the board/council who represents you.
Don't like it?
Change it.
Complaining accomplishes......nothing.
Observant insider.
Once again you bring forth an issue of great relevancy.
You are what this blog is about. Great subject and even greater insight.
This is an issue which I myself have great difficulties swallowing myself.
As you pointed out our city is controlled by 2 government entities.
One is the City and the other is the Port.
So lets look at the Port for now and discuss whether it hurts or benefits the city.
You are absolutely correct that the Port has most of our natural resources. Yet being our natural resources who is benefiting and who is paying for these natural resources?
ORS 777.010 Areas that may be included in port. (1) Ports may be formed in the manner provided in this section and ORS 777.050.(2) A proposed port may include all the territory in one county. However, where a petition is filed for formation of a port, the territorial limits of which do not include the county as a whole, the limits proposed by the petition shall not extend beyond the natural watershed of any drainage basin whose waters flow into another bay, estuary or river navigable from the sea situate within the county. [Amended by 1959 c.602 §1; 1963 c.209 §1; 1967 c.342 §1; 1971 c.727 §182; 1971 c.728 §2; 2003 c.802 §149]
Although I have never read the petition for formation of the port, I cannot for the life of me understand how the port can own property, which control the majority of our river front and beyond areas allowed under the law as they do.
I also do not understand how property on Wa-Na-Paw for example which does not meet the terms of this law can be held and controlled by the Port.
ORS 777.065 Development of port facilities at certain ports as state economic goal; state agencies to assist ports. The Legislative Assembly recognizes that assistance and encouragement of enhanced world trade opportunities are an important function of the state, and that development of new and expanded overseas markets for commodities exported from the ports of this state has great potential for diversifying and improving the economic base of the state. Therefore, development and improvement of port facilities suitable for use in world maritime trade at the Ports of Umatilla, Morrow, Arlington, The Dalles, Hood River and Cascade Locks and the development of deepwater port facilities at Astoria, Coos Bay, Newport, Portland and St. Helens is declared to be a state economic goal of high priority. All agencies of the State of Oregon are directed to assist in promptly achieving the creation of such facilities by processing applications for necessary permits in an expeditious manner and by assisting the ports involved with available financial assistance or services when necessary. [1981 c.879 §6; 1993 c.106 §1]
Then reading this law, I am curious to question does the casino meet the intention of the States goal for the creation of our Port.
After all the casino is not a development to export by sea commodities overseas.
Nor is the port owning a park for recreational purposes what the state intended here.
Part 1
Part 2
As I see it the only purpose for our Port is for the sea shipment of commodities to oversea markets.
Yet our very Port owns most all waterfront property, most of which is useless to the goal and intention of the state and who pays the bill?
We the citizens do.
Lets look at how we pay for this.
All the land that the port owns is not on the tax roles benefitting our city.
Yet we the citizens pay to support that property.
We pay to cross the bridge. A bridge I do not see as a purpose of our port to own, unless the port were to claim that every vehicle was shipping goods overseas.
We pay for the police and ambulance service for events of which the port benefits financially for recreational purposes not associated with the states intention for our port.
Yes citizens just think back at all the sheriff contracts and how our city is billed separately and at overtime rates to provide security to port events on port property. The port makes the money and the city pays the bills for it.
Even our sheriff contract covers port property. How many times have you been to marine park and seen the sheriff patrolling?
The same goes for the industrial park and all port owned property.
Now as far as I see it our city needs to enter into an intergovernmental agreement demanding that the port cover the cost the city pays to protect their property and their events in which they financially benefit.
If the port does not wish to pay the costs the city incurs, all we have to do is order the sheriff to cover those properties on his own dime and see how fast the port enters into its own financial agreement, with the sheriff.
As far as I am concerned our city has no right paying a slim cent of tax payers money to cover the costs of another governmental entity who profits on the backs of the tax payers.
It is apparent to me through history that our port cannot cannot create jobs with all this property they hold. Just look at the industrial park without a port use they have planned.
Look at any of their plans and show me one legitimate port use.
I think it is time for the city to take that property by condemnation and put it back on the tax roles and let our city expand our way.
Yes I agree that we have a problem here as well.
Again thank you for your input here.
Cody
misanthrope
Yes I have noticed regular changes in the city web site lately.
As they just contracted to update the city web site I do not know if it is these changes or the city is trying to prevent all these complaints and blogs using this information problems accessing them.
I guess time will tell.
Cody
Carol Taylor
I have looked into your posting and found a report from the National Indian Gaming Commission.
The Commission’s primary mission is to regulate gaming activities of Indian tribes on indian lands.
This includes any lands title to which is either held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or individual or held by any Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction by the United States over which an Indian tribe exercises governmental power.
This commission is ran under the Department of the Interior.
This commission released its seventh economic impact study. The report documents the economic impact Indian gaming had, during 2009
That report may be found here.
http://www.indiangaming.org/info/NIGA_2009_Economic_Impact_Report.pdf
Although this report conflicts with your belief that this casino will harm business here it has some relevant issue we needed to address which were not addressed.
For instance the net the tribes spend from the revenue they receive from the casinos that goes back to the reservation. How much will our city receive from those percentages.
If I look at the fact that;
20% of net revenue is used for education, children and elders, culture, charity and other purposes
19% goes to economic development
17% to health care
17% to police and fire protection
16% to infrastructure
11% to housing
Then taking into consideration that our city will increase the revenues the tribe already makes on their on reservation casino by alowing the tribe to have that casino moved here what of these percentages will stay in our city to support the needs imposed on our city to have this casino here.
Now I do not know if the casino is coming or not.
Yet what I mention in reply to you does not mean I do not have any concerns as I do.
Although my concern is not with business as business will adjust to the conditions.
My concern is for conditions which may not adjust.
My concern are public safety based.
I want to know if it is going to bring crime to our town and if so how we are going to not only control it but prevent it.
I want to know if it is going to create problem gamblers. Gamblers which end up spending their lifes earnings taking food and housing from their families.
I want to know if those gamblers will increase domestic assaults.
I want to know who is going to pay from any negatives effects that this may create.
These are the types of questions I want answered.
Part 1
Part 2
To answer your comment on the look of our community you need to go back in history to the start of the problem.
For years our city functioned off the profits the city made from low income citizens. We lived from census to census.
The city invited low or no income citizens to fill the city coffers.
Then those citizens had children and the city filled the coffers more so.
Oh the grants used to come and come and come because of this.
So instead of our city creating economic growth to lift these citizens from poverty the city was only concerned with making money off these residents through grants as then economic growth would have effected the money the city received in grants.
Do you remember a few years back when the census came out and the city disagreed?
Then the city sent out there own people to collect census information?
That was only because that census effected the grant money and the city would have lost money, so they had to go around and deflate the average income here through this second census.
All for the grant money this city would lose having the medium income higher than the grants allowed.
Now those grants are gone and what we have are the citizens with no hope of a future.
No jobs, inflated utility fees do to misuse of those funds, goods and services in town which are inflated from high utility rates and other factors.
So what should the city do?
I understand what you mean when you say pride of ownership but I believe that begins with pride in ones life.
Yes that is directly effected by other factors but in this case we do need to look around and wonder why.
I myself start with investment. If I invest in something and factors out of my control only cause that investment to lose money then why invest only to lose?
I myself could invest tens of thousands of dollars in landscaping.
Sure it would look nice but it will cost more than I could recoup.
Then on top of that it is going to raise the taxes I have to pay every year for an investment that I would lose on.
I would love to rip the home I live in out and build a new one. Yet to do that I just need look across the street.
That home was built and listed for over 2 hundred thousand dollars. I watched as it was listed for almost 2 years.
Then foreclosure. Then I just watched it sell for around 80 thousand dollars in a bank sale.
Could I build and compete with that?
This is happening all over town. Investments of peoples hard earned dollars are crumbling.
So until some kind of change in our city stimulates economic growth here our property values are going no where but down.
So what we need is an incentive of economic growth and I hate to say it again but that comes from our governments here.
Part 3
You speak of ordinances.
Are these ordinances prepared to pay for these repairs?
The only power the city has now is if those repairs you speak of are a public safety concern where the general public can be harmed.
Then the city has the power of condemnation to force those repairs.
Otherwise the city would be violating a constitutional right of the people being a person has the right to do as they choose with their life, liberties and possesstions as long as they do not violate another persons rights.
Property is one of those possessions as well as the way people choose to live their lives.
Economic growth and raising the standards of life is all that is going to give people the incentive to change.
As far as the East exit to our town closing I see our downtown drying up except to locals.
What I foresee is our commercial relocating to the industrial park.
Much like Hood River in the 60's when the heights started commercial expansion in that town. The farms and orchards were replaced with business and look at it today.
As far as the casino closing the east interchange I am going to say something I told another on this argument.
First off do you believe that stopping the casino will stop the East interchange from closing?
If you do consider this.
The port has all that property they want to sale or make money on.
They have even invested in that property so they could sale or make money off of it.
Yet where has that investment got them?
Since that investment new factors effect their ability to do anything with that property.
Now we have a comprehensive plan which must be followed.
Now any development not only has to deal with building regulations, but now down to the traffic created from those developments.
These are now controlled by laws and all these laws costs which are charged to the developer.
Now the port has wanted an interchange to the industrial park for decades.
Due to the casino all the study's and engineering work has been done for them.
Now the Feds and ODOT are aware that the east interchange does not comply with today's federal interchange spacing laws.
So if the casino does not come, do not be surprised, if the port cries foul over the East interchange spacing requirements, pleads economic growth, to get that interchange closed and moved to access their property.
As far as government waking up I agree.
Yet the people need to wake up and make their voices heard.
I was taught to never judge a book by its cover and that there were always two sides to every story.
Now I stalled answering you as every draft seemed like a attack against your point of view.
This is not the case in anyway.
Even as I read this one it seems that way, but there are so many factors I had to consider, that I believe you should consider them as well.
I fully understand how you feel but after putting forth my opinion I hope you agree that we both have questions to be answered.
I also hope I have put forth enough information to realize that each and every problem you mentioned has a reason it is a problem.
The problem is how do we fix them?
Cody
Wow it did not take long for me to get a call on this.
Yes it is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But to understand how the bill of rights came to be one first must understand that these rights were based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted on June 12, 1776.
You must understand that that declaration of rights specifically stated, "That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
Yet in argument over property rights one must only further read the bill of rights and you will see;
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
So in reflection to this one must just understand what an unalienable right is.
Inalienable rights are two fold.
First is a natural right and is considered to be self-evident and universal.
Well owning property is self evident as well as universal according to our culture.
Second is legal rights also called statutory rights, which are bestowed by a particular government to the governed people and are relative to specific cultures and governments.
Well land ownership is granted through statutory law.
Many have questioned why the framers took out property from the language and left us with unalienable rights.
Well that is simple as to do so property would have rights of their own yet the reasoning property was not granted these rights boils down to money for government.
Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government, replacing the idea with "happiness".
Franklin believed property to be a "creature of society" and thus, he believed that it should be taxed as a way to finance civil society.
When Jefferson spoke of happiness he meant a public happiness as a test of government.
Yet government used Franklins reasoning therefore we have property tax's, sales tax's, import tax's and property tax's everywhere today.
As convoluted as it is happiness refers to property rights as well.
Sorry I did not explain this.
Cody
Cody,
I have to disagree with your statement concerning the closure of the East Cascade Locks Interchange should the casino not open. There is no funding for a new interchange other than money from the Warm Springs Tribe. The Port can call foul all they want. There will be no money for the construction of a new Forest Lane Interchange without the Tribes Casino. Look at the list of interchange projects need in Oregon and see where the Forest Lane Interchange is without tribal funding. You also need to remember the Port's wildcard in what they really want. Follow the Port money. The Marine Park entrance in mid town is much more likely to be funded by the State. The Port can continue to plead poverty because tour buses and trucks can not fit under the existing railroad underpass. Add this to the fact that Port's management of the Sternwheeler was so bad they couldnt maintain it. They leased the boat to the Portland Spirit. The Portland Spirit is a private company that employs "local" (mostly Skamania County) people. These facts make a new Entrance look good on paper. The DOT has already funded the design of the new Park Entrance as well. I will take you up on that cup of coffee someday. Even you might be surprised just how dirty the politics can get.
Anonymous November 14, 2010 8:56 PM
Your points are valid yet hat tricks happen all the time.
I agree at this time there is no funding for that project but will time always be this way?
What I based my opinion on is this.
The cash cow for the port is the Bridge of the Gods at this time.
Then they have Marine Park.
Yet looking at all the conceptual designs they have in their dreams we have the following.
The World Class Sailing Facility at Marine Park.
The Pacific Crest Planned Development, a residential mixed use plan on the former 40 acre site of the visitor center and scenic tram, stopped by the courts as a non port use. Then they got into the Sternwheeler.
This includes a Pacific Crest Trailhead, office space and assisted living center near downtown; a new soccer field; and a range of housing options from duplexes to executive homes with sweeping views.
The marine park access I think is going to happen.
The pharmacy and new post office on the former Dorris property across from the East Wind.
The Hikers store at the rest area by the Bridge of the Gods.
Then they have one other piece of property on Wa-Na-Pa I have not seen any designs which have been drafted and concepts released.
These are all on the West end of town.
Now lets go to the East end of town off Forest Lane.
There is the health club, health restaurant and spa.
There is the 42 acre Insitu Campus Proposal. The proposal includes conceptual design for a 400,000 square foot campus including office, manufacturing, training and research and development functions, as well as extensive recreational opportunities on more than one mile of Columbia Riverfront .
Then the Industrial Park has another residential mixed use of multi story commercial residential which consists of the residential and commercial around the cove.
The casino if it comes.
An amphitheatre.
Then the steak house restaurant along side the amphitheater.
Part 1
Part 2
Each of these projects has already went through planning and design.
Each of these projects you should be able to see those designs on the web as that is where I saw all of them.
I was floored when I saw them.
These designs are beautiful to say the least.
Realistic is another thing.
I do know this and that is when they dream they do it in a big way and spent a pretty penny having these designs done.
So I based my opinion taking into account all these factors.
Now the west end projects but one could easily become a reality.
The only problem I see now is traffic meeting the new requirements.
If you go on line and find these project's you will see and understand.
But the east end with the exception of the health club and spa all face the same problem as pointed out in the MCEDD comprehensive economic development strategy study being the port has been unable sell this property or these plans because of the grade of the railroad and there was no viable access to support the traffic generated.
That is a problem which is now further restricted as the city imposed the traffic studies which any project on these lands will require that interchange.
This study was before the traffic study's were even proposed here.
The wild card here is the lobbyist and like I said hat tricks happen all the time.
Now there is a video of the Industrial Park/Herman Creek projects on line.
I will try and find it again and post it. I need to be in Portland shortly but will do my best when I return.
If I can find this again and not just the drawings watch this and tell me what you think.
If I cannot find it I am sure the port has a copy of it as it was their video, that they paid to design and turn into a video.
All I can say is if you saw all these projects as I have you too would expect a hat trick.
They already paid to have it designed and all it would take is a developer with the foresight to see it as I did.
I would also say that this economy will have to stabilize first but it will.
Economies do this from time to time and if it does not then things like this will not matter and that land might be better served growing vegetables for food.
As far as that cup of coffee I have posted my contact information just give me a jingle, but understand that coming from the corporate utility world working for Satan himself, it would take a lot to surprise this old man.
Cody
Cody,
Here is another can of worms that needs to be scrutinized by the citizens of CL,
Civics lessons from Bell, California
The Oregonian Editorial Board
Posted: 11/14/2010 8:46 PM
The tiny Los Angeles suburb of Bell will continue to ring out as a comedy of corruption in which few, it seems, were aware the city administrator was going to be paid $1.5 million this year and local businesses were shook down, Sopranos-style, just to stay open.
But the comedy has taken on tragic proportions with the news that Bell had won the fiscal seal of approval in its annual audit by the accounting giant Mayer Hoffman McCann -- and that audits by others of public agencies across California show a similar failure to spot and report flagrant fraud.
Something's very wrong here, and it's bigger than Bell.
Mayer Hoffman McCann has 30 locations across the United States and is, as one of the revered Big Four accounting firms, chock full of Certified Professional Accountants who live by their reputation for accuracy and integrity.
Are municipal books so cooked as to be indecipherable?
In California, the Los Angeles Times found, it turns out some of the books go missing altogether, particularly in the estimated 100 municipalities whose redevelopment agencies fail to file annual reports. Aside from being against the law, that leaves less to audit -- and yet professional auditors failed in one of five cases to report missing annual reports at all.
Worse, the Times found auditors had given clean audits to cities whose officials were later convicted and sent off to prison for doing bad things with the public's money. And at least one city, Victorville, had fired the auditor who'd challenged its practices and replaced him with a more approving Mayer Hoffman McCann.
The hard news, however, is accounting is not police work.
An audit is a snapshot in time, however expansive, of money that comes in and goes out: If everything squares, as it would in a personal checkbook, the likely grade is passing. Yet an absence of internal accounting controls and practices should be immediately apparent to auditors and send up a red flag -- how Bell could illegally lend public money to city employees remains baffling.
Cody,
Here is another can of worms just waiting to be opened by the citizens of CL.
Had to post in several parts.
Civics lessons from Bell, California
The Oregonian Editorial Board
Posted: 11/14/2010 8:46 PM
The tiny Los Angeles suburb of Bell will continue to ring out as a comedy of corruption in which few, it seems, were aware the city administrator was going to be paid $1.5 million this year and local businesses were shook down, Sopranos-style, just to stay open.
But the comedy has taken on tragic proportions with the news that Bell had won the fiscal seal of approval in its annual audit by the accounting giant Mayer Hoffman McCann -- and that audits by others of public agencies across California show a similar failure to spot and report flagrant fraud.
Something's very wrong here, and it's bigger than Bell.
Mayer Hoffman McCann has 30 locations across the United States and is, as one of the revered Big Four accounting firms, chock full of Certified Professional Accountants who live by their reputation for accuracy and integrity.
Are municipal books so cooked as to be indecipherable?
In California, the Los Angeles Times found, it turns out some of the books go missing altogether, particularly in the estimated 100 municipalities whose redevelopment agencies fail to file annual reports. Aside from being against the law, that leaves less to audit -- and yet professional auditors failed in one of five cases to report missing annual reports at all.
Worse, the Times found auditors had given clean audits to cities whose officials were later convicted and sent off to prison for doing bad things with the public's money. And at least one city, Victorville, had fired the auditor who'd challenged its practices and replaced him with a more approving Mayer Hoffman McCann.
The hard news, however, is accounting is not police work.
Part 2
An audit is a snapshot in time, however expansive, of money that comes in and goes out: If everything squares, as it would in a personal checkbook, the likely grade is passing. Yet an absence of internal accounting controls and practices should be immediately apparent to auditors and send up a red flag -- how Bell could illegally lend public money to city employees remains baffling.
Oregon approaches things like California in that it places trust in its towns and cities to get the job done right. It requires each to initiate and complete an annual audit.
Of about 1,600 municipalities here, about 450 are so small they file a brief statement rather than a full audit. The quality of the work depends on the CPAs or officials involved. And the Oregon secretary of state's audit division, trying to ensure sound accounting practices, annually reviews the paperwork of 10 or so auditing firms that conduct municipal audits. It's effective in a broad-stroke way, hardly an audit of audits.
By contrast, Washington state employs about 300 auditors who trundle off to Washington municipalities to conduct the annual audits. And the buck stops there, at quite a high price in state government.
But corruption knows no state lines, and it defies auditors whether they're from a sharp-suited firm or state agency. Stopping it takes something else.
The best, most reliable audit of any city government -- particularly in a time when every nickel is pinched for further service -- is citizen interest in something so gray and boring as a budget.
Transparency is indeed the shopworn word of the 21st century. But it does take on life and civic consequence when everyday citizens as much as auditors pay attention and ask the most basic questions.
A good starter always is, Can you please explain this to me?
Just like grampa always told me, follow the money! (Even when they try to hide it)
Budget is too hard to understand and way too much work for me. Isn't that what we hire these guys to take care of?
Sincerely,
Bell, CA resident
We understand how you feel, thank you for having faith in us and allowing government to work the way it was intended.
Sincerely,
Your City Administrator
Bell, CA
Gary
Get tied up for a few days and you post something which is of a concern to many citizens since this broke.
I really enjoyed the perspective the reporter presented when he pointed out the lack of oversight in our state.
I really took to heart one particular statement from this reporter.
"Yet an absence of internal accounting controls and practices should be immediately apparent to auditors and send up a red flag."
Our auditor has been hoisting this very red flag for years.
That red flag has been the request's for departmental work orders, purchase orders and inventory control.
Now I am not saying that any person in our city is pocketing any of the funds of our city.
But Gary this is a good subject for us to go in depth about as I could understand how our auditor feels trying to figure out what is going on here without these simple tools of business.
So I am going to devote a new subject on this very issue.
Thanks Gary.
Cody
Post a Comment