Bend’s Manifest DestinyThe Bend real estate market is in the crapper. What would you do about it? Well, how about putting 9,000 more acres of developable land into the local inventory by bringing it inside the city’s Urban Growth Boundary?
Sound a little nuts to you? Yeah, us too. But that’s what the Bend Planning Commission has recommended, and what the city council will be debating later this month.
As late as last summer the commission was contemplating bringing a far more modest expanse – about 4,900 acres – inside the UGB. But then the real estate / development / builder lobby spoke up – including some real heavy hitters like Brooks Resources, the Day family (Hooker Creek) and the Miller family (Miller Tree Farm).
When those people talk, Bend city government listens. The council instructed the planning commission to add more acreage. A lot more.
The size of the expansion is predicated on an assumption that Bend’s population will continue to grow at the feverish pace set during the housing bubble. That assumption is patently ridiculous now, with the economy careening off a cliff and something like a year and a half’s worth of housing inventory sitting unsold on the Bend market.
Size matters, but the proposed UGB expansion is a loser for other reasons too.
For one thing, the city originally contemplated bringing in more land to the east, which would be relatively inexpensive to provide with services such as sewers and roads – an estimated $62,000 per acre. But then it changed perspective and decided to bring in more land to the north and west of the present UGB boundary – land that will cost roughly $89,000 per acre to serve.
Why the change? Well, it happens that the aforementioned heavy hitters own a lot of land on the northwest side that they’d like to develop. But that’s pure coincidence, we’re sure.
Infrastructure expenses for the northwest will include two major new sewer lines (estimated cost: $40 million) and another bridge across the Deschutes (estimated cost: God only knows). The heavy hitters have served notice on the city that they don’t intend to pay for it; they expect much of it to be covered with user fees and city bonds. In other words, leave the taxpayers to pick up the tab.
If the city goes ahead and approves the UGB expansion as presently drawn it could run into legal roadblocks. The state Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) has expressed strong reservations about its size, its location and the process used in deciding what land to include. ODOT is worried about big new commercial development along Highways 97 and 20.
The city could save itself a lot of headaches, and save the taxpayers a bundle of money, by sending this monstrosity back to the drawing board. But with the Central Oregon Builders Association’s pet councilors coming on board, we have little hope of that.
Just the same, there’s nothing to stop us from giving this crazy plan THE BOOT – and we hereby do.
This article appears in Nov 13-19, 2008.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
It strokes the ego of the council to sit on the board of a ‘big’ and growing city. It must be growing, right? I mean the UGB is getting bigger!!
The name of the game is buy a candidate–buy the election–buy the changes you need to make the money you think you deserve. These people are still making buggy whips while automobiles are rolling off the assembly line. They couldn’t recognize a new paradigm if it bit them on their collective asses.
The impacts of this UGB go far beyond the ‘vision’ they have–so far beyond they are blind to what they are doing. As their budget goes in the crapper–as their own homes devalue–as fewer and fewer city employees try to provide more and more city services–as their much-touted ‘quality of life’ disappears, these very same people will find some other straw horse to ride.
We get the government we deserve.
I don’t feel like I deserve this government. This whole mess we’re in is primarily attributable to the fact that the development interests still rule this town. They pressure elected and appointed officials (shit, in many case they ARE the elected and appointed officials) and whenever possible they buy them. They bully staff all the way up and down the chain. They force the debate to the right and their interests and perspective now dominate the tone of every issue where growth is even remotely involved. Even our so-called progressive councilors and planning commissioners have bent far to the right as a result – because not doing so would send our whiny overly-entitled development community into a tizzy and their jobs would be called for.
The question is, who’s actually going to do something about this? I mean, shit, Tom Greene made a (fairly) last minute decision to run against a well-known, popular, and effective city councilor, that although progressive has clearly taken an effort to work with the development community. But because he wasn’t bought and paid for they went after them. And because they sunk so much money into the race, they beat him.
C’mon Bend, wake the F up! Couldn’t all you westside liberals take a few moments from sipping your latte in your westside homes or biking or hiking, or whatever you were doing on election day to actually GO TO THE BALLOT BOX AND FUCKING VOTE!?!?! Oh wait, this is Oregon, and so you had like THREE WEEKS to check a few boxes and MAIL IN your ballot, which you could have done WHILE you were drinking your latte.
I guess that’s too much to ask for. To get involved, I mean. Even once. To vote. Nice work. I guess that was too hard. This place and the things you love about it are getting ruined. Do something.
To all you liberals who failed to give a shit, I give you the BOOT and hereby label you all Bendejos.
POO:
I think your anger is misdirected. According to Deschutes Country records voter turnout was 86.41% (http://www.deschutes.org/electionresults/) so clearly people didn’t let latte drinking interfere with their voting. Though it’s too early to get information on turnout by party affiliation I’ve heard the number of newly registered Democrats is significantly up. I suppose it’s a safe assumption that the majority of those might share your so called “westside liberal” values. But it’s an equally safe assumption that many of those were also first time voters and are just the kind of voters susceptible to the carpet bombing advertising we had in this campaign.
But I wonder if you volunteered your time to talk to these new voters and share the history of our local political leadership? Did you get out and help make a difference? Or are you just berating people out of a sense of guilt?
Development interests rule because the voters give them the support they ask for or buy. Lets face it–the raw number of voters if halved far exceeds the people in COBA–the construction and real estate industries. People don’t take the time to become informed about the platforms of the candidates for local offices. They don’t read the articles about the candidates in the Bully or Source unless they involve scandal. What information that is out there is usually subjective and contradictory. The responsibility to become informed lies with the individual voter, and even in this internet driven information world, few of us take the time.
So, the candidate that wins is not usually the issue driven candidate. It is the candidate able to gain voter TOMA (Top Of Mind Awareness)at the precise moment the voter is actually casting their ballot. They recognize the name–it has positive, neutral, or negative connotations–and they vote accordingly. How many hit pieces can the candidate put out about the competition that connect? (Steigler?) How many lawn signs–repetitive radio ads–bumper stickers?(COBA candidates) Throw enough crap against the wall and some of it sticks–and crap throwing is a very expensive art form!
Barring that, it boils down to party affiliation or: ‘I’m happy with how things are going’ ‘I’m unhappy with how things are going.’ This year the ‘I can’t do anything worse’ candidates appear to have won a lot of offices.
The collective ‘we’ in ‘we get the government we deserve’ is an awfully large group–and even though you may not feel like a part of it , you are. A participative democracy requires participation–and that doesn’t mean just voting and sitting on the sidelines. It means working to help guide the process to achieve the goals you set. If you work at it and fail, you have to work harder the next time and be prepared to fail again. That’s the way it goes–that’s the way it’s done.
And remember, it’s an election, not the end of the world…
I probably contributed between 80-120 hours to supporting “my” candidates. So I’m not berating them over a sense of guilt. Is my anger misguided? I don’t know, it has to be guided somewhere. Where do you think it should be guided?
Folks, let’s not get nasty with each other. Also, remember it’s not too late to do what both of the previous responses recommend: get involved.
Before councilors approve any UGB changes, they have time to consider your valuable input on the subject. November 24 at 4:00, (1300 NW Wall) is the next public hearing on UGB issues, and maybe we can share some of this valuable conversation.
I know I’m in the distinct minority here, but I’m gonna go ahead and say I don’t think that it’s so crazy that families like the Millers, Coatses and Wards have a lot of political pull in Bend, and I think it’s a bit strange that people arrive here and express wonderment that these families who’ve been here for generations and own tons of land and businesses and have lots of longstanding ties in the community still manage to get their way.
It reminds me of the movie “Casino,” where the Robert DeNiro character expresses annoyance and condescension at the fact that he has to deal with the local cowboys who run the local political machine. Maybe it’s just that the type of pick-up-everything-and-move dreamers and idealists who’ve come here in the past 10 years somehow thought that Bend’s political scene was a blank slate and that once some people with MBAs and MPAs got in here, they’d start running the show. NOT! You shouldn’t misunderestimate the local good ‘ol boys.
Personally I expect that as long as folks like the Wards and Coatses have their money, their locally-based extended families, big local networks of personal and business contacts and their big landholdings, they’ll probably continue to stay a step ahead of the latte-sippers. And frankly, they’ve got staying power way beyond any telecommuter or freelancer or well-heeled Broken Top retiree and will be just fine no matter what happens to the economy, which you can’t say about most Westside yuppies. But as Bend gets bigger they’ll lose their influence as time goes by (they’re already not as powerful as they once were). I mean, Las Vegas isn’t run by guys in cowboy boots any more.
Not Surprising–
In this representative republic/democracy/plutocracy, the one man, one vote rule applies. The landed gentry should not have power beyond their legitimate vote–but the are guaranteed the right of ‘free speech’ by the Constitution, interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean campaign donations either directly to the candidate (within limits) or to the party or like-minded independent groups.
The system guarantees them a voice out of proportion to their vote–in direct proportion to their ability to fund campaigns. In this way they inform, malign, mislead, deflect, and obscure. This is no longer an era where we can get to know the candidates on a personal level beyond what handlers allow us to see.
The hostility to these interests goes beyond ‘Westside Yuppies.’ There are plenty of white and blue collar types on the North, South and East who don’t care for latte and are tired of the influence of these monied families and companies. The only influence the public has is their vote–and to see it thwarted by powerful, well-financed, special interests who reap benefits at the expense of many, is frustrating and fosters anger and rage.
For many of us, the sooner the ‘good old boys’ lose their influence, the better.
You damn the people who bring jobs and prosperity!! You are fools!!!
Mr. Cramer,
As someone else pointed out, over 86% of the eligible voters have spoken. Where was the “anger and rage” you mention on Election Day? Who’s thwarting whom here?
Maybe the “problem” is that there are a lot of people around here who still have too much common sense to bite the hand that feeds them. And the surprising thing is that even after the town has tripled in size in 20 years, it’s still those “good old boys” that are some of the biggest employers.
It’s amazing that in years and years of much-touted inflow of people from California and points beyond, people we were told were talented, experienced, innovative and rich, the best employers in Bend are the same ones we had when there were nothing BUT good old boys around here: St. Charles, Mt. Bachelor, The Bulletin, Bend Cable, Bend Research, Nosler, the aircraft makers.
You would think that out of the thousands and thousands of newcomers, one or two would have an idea that would take off and create some new homegrown industry and jobs! Instead, it seems like everyone who moved here is either a freelancer or is living out a lifelong dream of opening a cute cafe or cute shop.
Not surprising is dead right – we should not be one bit surprised at the power structure here. But Stephen Cramer is also right – these folks should not have the sort of power beyond their vote.
But they do. And they will. Unless others get in the mix and do something about it.
I’m expressing frustration because this seemed like a pivotal year to do something, and little was actually accomplished. Again, the Gramlich vs. Greene race epitomizes how far we have to go.
Until another interest, whether individual or collective, steps into the fray and asserts some influence and sensibility, things will remain much as they are. And that’s going to be to nearly everyone’s detriment.
Jed, you write, “You damn the people who bring jobs and prosperity!! You are fools!!!”
It’s hard to tell if you’re being sarcastic or not (I think you might be.) But in case not, these guys (Westside landowners) don’t bring the money and jobs and prosperity – they merely ensure that the jobs and prosperity work strongly to their personal advantage at the expense of everyone else. Case in point – they want as much of their land to come in as possible despite the fact that it’s most expensive to serve. Then they send a letter to the city saying that the taxpayers should pay for the cost. How is that to our benefit? We’ll be fronting their development projects and because of the expensive land and infrastructure costs and the location are almost sure to be overwhelmingly upper end single family detached homes. If there’s anything the UGB process has said we’re not in short supply of it’s those. This is the wrong direction to head, and we’re headed there purely because of their political clout.
The law, as I understand it, says we have to have a UGB that contains a 20 year ‘supply’ of land necessary for growth. Come on–is the model they are using a current one or based on the wishful thinking of 2004 to 2006? Is the proposed UGB going Westward because it is the most practical–or because the most influential are driving it in that direction?
In all honesty, can we deny what the answers to these questions are and who is providing them?
‘Cute shops’ are headed the same place all of those construction jobs the RE developers provided went. The economic engine that drives this area is a two cylinder engine and neither have any spark right now. The RE sector is in the crapper and the Recreation sector is about to demonstrate its lack of strength.
Hang on to you hats, chillun. There’s a big wind blowin’!
Well despite my previous comments, I do think that the UGB expansion process should be open. It’s undeniable that the old UGB from when, the ’80s?, which supposedly was woefully inadequate for the huge growth that ensued, still contains hundreds of vacant lots!
But at the same time, to boil the question down to which land is cheaper to serve is to oversimplify the task of planning the City’s future growth. If you go West, you’re bringing land into the UGB that is probably quite a bit more desirable to buy, live and work in. It also is more heavily forested and prone to fire danger and more expensive to develop. If you go East, you’ve got the wide open spaces but in some places you’re encroaching on farmland (which, along with timberland, the UGB law was designed to protect).
But the UGB expansion is also about the direction we want the town to take. If you look in Portland, the Bay Area and all around the country, the nicer development is on the hills, by rivers and canyons and around other more complex topography, and the lower-value areas are on the flats.
Bend’s unique geographic position in a steep precipitation cline means that half the town is in a Marin County-like arboreal environment and half is in a Bakersfield-like badlands environment. You can’t reduce the question of whether we want to open up more areas that look more like Marin County or more areas that look more like Bakersfield to how much it costs to lay sewer pipe.
“I don’t think that it’s so crazy that families like the Millers, Coatses and Wards have a lot of political pull in Bend”
No, it isn’t strange at all. But it isn’t right that a handful of GOBs (Good Old Boys) are able to override the best interests of the community as a whole.
“But the UGB expansion is also about the direction we want the town to take. If you look in Portland, the Bay Area and all around the country, the nicer development is on the hills, by rivers and canyons and around other more complex topography, and the lower-value areas are on the flats.”
But don’t we have a chronic affordable housing problem? And if we’re going to address that problem, don’t we need to develop some of those “lower-value” areas as well as providing Westside land for Brooks to build $700,000 McMansions on?
“This place and the things you love about it are getting ruined. Do something.”
I’ve been trying to do something for about 20 years. I’ve decided it’s futile. The GOBs in the real estate / development / building industries call the shots and always will. Not just because of their heavy campaign contributions, I think, but because although they may pay lip service to the idea of “smart growth” or “managed growth” or “sustainable development,” our elected and appointed city officials know in their guts that growth is now our ONLY industry and are afraid that putting the brakes on it in any way would cause the local economy to swerve over a cliff.
“But don’t we have a chronic affordable housing problem?”
We may have an affordable housing problem, but I wouldn’t call it chronic. To me the idea of a “chronic problem” is one that’s been with us for a long time and will be with us in the foreseeable future. I think if you look back even just 10 years in Bend and Central Oregon, we didn’t have an affordable housing problem then, and if you look back further, housing here was downright cheap. When I was a kid in the ’80s even the quite low-income families could afford to live in their own single-family home.
In the late ’70s, you could buy what would now be called a “Westside bungalow” in Bend for $25-30K – no kidding. That’s about $85-90K in today’s dollars. If house prices drop that low again, there goes the affordability issue for almost any employed person. I remember in about 1985 I was looking at some Westside houses and one of the big, beautiful, historic houses on Congress St. on the north side of Tumalo Av. (I think it was the second one in on the right – haven’t driven that street in a while) was selling for $100,000. That’s less than $200K in today’s dollars. And as recent as 1999 a friend of mine bought a 3-bedroom house on Federal St. for a bit less than $120K. That’s $150K now. You can imagine if Westside 3-bedroom houses go back to around $150K that you’re going to already be seeing sub-$100K houses in many subdivisions.
Median home prices have already dropped like 40% year-over-year, no exaggeration, in Bend’s “feeder” markets in Southern California and the Bay Area. Alarming as it might sound, I would expect Central Oregon median home prices to fall even more than that, because we don’t have the economic base those areas have, as HBM notes.
The UGB expansion is almost the epitome of a situation where the long view is necessary. I think it would be shortsighted to be guided by an issue like “affordable housing” which was driven by a national and local real estate boom and recent demographic / migration trends that it would be kind of foolish to extrapolate into the future. Even The Bulletin reported a few days ago that Central Oregon population growth is expected to be in the low single digits in the next few-to-several years. If the downside surprises of this recession continue and the jobs picture continues to deteriorate, it’s easy to imagine some modest declines in local population and some major declines in local home prices.
Why was Bend real estate cheaper (yes, CHEAPER) than in Salem, Eugene and the Portland subdivisions in the ’80s? Simple: the jobs situation. We’re going back to that old paradigm now. Whatever gave recent “upscale” newcomers and second-home buyers their wealth – real estate, stocks, bonds, or just about any other investment – all those asset classes have lost value and continue to lose value. We’re back to local wages determining local house prices, and I expect Bend to become cheaper than Salem and Eugene again soon, because Salem has the State government and Eugene has the U of O, which will still employ thousands even in a full-blown depression.
Anyone noting an apparent contradiction that I say I was a kid in the ’80s and looking at Westside house prices in 1985: both are true. I was that kind of kid.
You would think that out of the thousands and thousands of newcomers, one or two would have an idea that would take off and create some new homegrown industry and jobs! We’ve had such candidates running in the past only to be disregarded or completely ignored by BOTH the elitist print media, Bend Bull#### and the ####Source.