2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I am concerned about the change to local control will essentially mean more development. Your listeners should ask themselves whether they know the names of their local Board of County Commissioners or City Council, and how many of their friends know those names. I'd wager that very few know. But you'd better bet that all the large local developers not only know their names, but have them to lunch, cocktail parties, and golf rounds on a regular basis. In short the ability of large developers to influence local gov't is enormous. Although big developers have some long term interest in preventing the impression of sprawl, they also have a very strong short term interest in building the next subdivision on the edge of the urban growth boundary. The effect is sprawl.

If we send decision making back to the local government, the effect will be sprawl.

- Pam Hardy
Bend, Oregon

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context