03/22/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

area, We (}6 not believe that any further development of the LCC area. at this time would be of sufficient benefit to the entire community to justify either its added expense to the taxpayers or its strain on our limited resources. My, Hugh Mitchell, in advocating immediate development of this area, has made a number of contentions with which we do not agree. Specifically, --He. contends that freedom of choice in. living areas would be restricted. We contend that with an estlmated 38% of the land now zoned for re- sidential use vacant within the projected urban service area, including hillside areas, freedom of choice obviously exists now. Complete freedom of choice has already been shown to be unworkable--costly to the 'taxpayers and wasteful of our land and natural resources. ./ :J~":-.' --He objects to the exclusion from the urban service area of areas of economic opportunity that are presently attracting investors. We doubt that these investors would be adding more to the economy of the ar-ea than development of t,he LCC basin at this time would add to the taxpayers' burden. --ML Mitchell calls "misleading" the $7.4 million figure for capital expenditures to provide services to the area. And yet this figure is the estimated public cost only; it does not include cost for provision of lateral sewer lines, for example, which the developer traditionally builds. Nor does it include permanent sewage treatment facilities which would have to be provided, at significant cost, at a fu"Cure date if not now. Many of these costs may be amortized over a long,period of time, but right now, at least, the taxpayers are counting pennleso . --He contends that the LCC area has been singled out on the basis of its inabi~ity to pay for itself when every development is paying for serVlces In other areas. However, simply because other areas were allowed to develop in the past without adequate consideration for the pr~~~Si?n of urban services is no reason to compound our present dlttlculties by adding more--especially since this proposal would be leapfrogging development away from the existing urban framework and (hus even more costly to provide with urban' servi'ces. r.. '" ~, --He contends that development of the Lec area would help accomnli~h compact growth, We fail to see how openIng-up anew area is con- tributing to compact urban growth. Until we fill in some of the present urban sprawl and develop land that is already provi~ed with urban services, we see little reason to extend development Into comparatively virgin territory. --Mr Mitchell contends that the agriculturally unproductive LCC land should be traded for presently productive land. But what land is he talking about? Does he mean that areas already serviced, though not yet developed, should be abandoned? Hardly an act to win the support of the taxpayers. Other agricultural land within the service area has been encroached on by existing developments to such an extent that it is no longer viable for agricultural use. . --He suggests that if a planned development does not go into the LCC area, it will be broken up into rural 5 acre lots, thus hindering future efficient development of the land. We believe that the . difficulty and expense of putting in satisfactory septic tanks will continue to discourage, as it has up to now, this type of development in the area, --He agrues that development of the LeC basin would add to the vari~ty of open spaces and to our park system. But he does not make clear who would be paying for the development of these parks and the provision of recreation programs. Traditionally it has been the taxpayer and not the developer. We do not believe that Mr, Mitchell has justified development of the LCC (iI'ea at this time, As long as there are existing developed areas not yet services and serviced areas not yet developed, the taxpayers would be correct in objecting to the use of public funds to expand into new areas, Mr, Mitchell argues that the public cost would not be so great because Lane Community College needs a sewer system and a firestation in any case. But he failst.o add that extensive develop- ment of that area would require, in addition, widening of 30th Avenue and additional access roads, expansion of sewage treatment facilities, either new schools or busing to existing ones, and added police pro- "/3 '. 3(22(72