Barely a mile away, a former Target department store looms over an empty, down-at-heel section
of the Fountain Square center. Smaller shops overlooking acres of deserted parking lot featuring ``for
lease'' signs.

The death of shopping in a decrepit suburb? Hardly. These and scores of other abandoned ``big-box'' stores across metro Atlanta often tell a tale of prosperity, albeit in a different location, as merchants move to where there's more people, more affluence and more parking.

Cities, which often lose sales tax revenue with the departures, complain that the empty buildings
become eyesores that breed crime and vandalism and depress foot traffic and property values.
Adding to their frustration, some retailers with long-term leases continue paying rent after they move
to keep competitors away.  ``It becomes kind of a blight on the community,'' said Brett
Harrell,elected mayor of Snellville last year on a ‘smart-growth’ platform.

In other cases, older shopping centers that lose their large anchor tenants are subdivided and attract
small businesses typically deemed less attractive - thrift stores, hobby shops, restaurants, call centers,
exercise studios.  Property managers and developers counter that a free-enterprise society must at
times be patient while the market decides the best use of a space, even if a retailer pays the rent to
keep it empty.

``At some point either (a departed retailer) will get tired of paying the rent ... or else the marketplace
will determine that there is another usage,'' said Marty Wolf, director of property services for
Flanders Properties, which develops and manages shopping centers.

But some cities aren't waiting patiently. Peachtree City, an upscale planned community south of
Atlanta, recently passed an ordinance that limits big-box stores to 32,000 square feet and prohibits
any three tenants from occupying more than 80,000 square feet. The law also bars retailers from
continuing to pay rent after leaving a location to keep it off the market.

``They not only keep them vacant, but they keep them looking Third World,'' said Jim Williams,
director of development in Peachtree City, where Home Depot and Wal-Mart plan new stores next
year.  Some developers question whether the law will stand up to legal scrutiny, but city leaders say
they wrote the ordinance narrowly to address a public-interest issue.

The city of 34,000 aims to avoid the sort of vacant space that has befallen Fayetteville, about 10
miles east, Williams said. ``I'm not trying to make them look bad, but they have some really
wonderful examples of carnage.''  One is the Banks Crossing shopping center, which sports a Kmart
that closed last month and a Belk's clothing store that packed up last year.

When big-box retailers with long-term leases move - which some developers say is happening more
frequently as customers flock to newer stores - smaller neighboring merchants struggle.  Source:
12/27/00, Register Guard, by the Associated Press

The real question business, landowners and government should be asking is: How much money are
we wasting by harming the environment?

We recently completed two years of research about the costs and benefits of business practices that
reduce environmental impacts.  Surprisingly, we found that if the proper framework were established
and a number of barriers removed, Oregon firms and farmers could take advantage of an emerging
suite of resource efficiency practices - or sustainability practices, as they are also called - that would
not only help resolve many environmental issues, but also significantly boost the bottom line of
businesses and save government money.

By adopting these new practices, Oregonians may find that most environmental impacts are a sign
of waste and inefficiency in business operations, which often result from design failures in
operational processes, products and management systems. Eliminating waste and improving
efficiency in every aspect of business operations may not only reduce operating costs and increase
revenues, it also will reduce or even eliminate environmental impacts.

Thus, rather than arguing about the costs of regulations, Oregon firms and landowners could view
environmental impacts as a "canary in the coal mine" indicating inefficiency - and wasted money -
within their operations and use this awareness to systematically design out the problems. Firms that
take this approach will not only improve their economic competitiveness, they also may no longer
even need to be regulated.

For example, we gathered case studies of more than 160 firms in Oregon and Washington in the
manufacturing, service and retail sectors that adopted one or more sustainability measures. Financial
data showed they saved $55 million annually, with a 1.9-year average payback, while significantly
reducing air and water emissions, hazardous waste and habitat impacts. The savings resulted from
redesigning production processes and products to reduce unneeded material inputs, phasing out toxic
materials and substances, dramatically reducing energy and water use, shifting to renewable forms
of energy and greatly increasing reuse, remanufacturing and recycling by finding ways to turn used
materials into new products.

Another assessment found that the region could save at least $90 million annually in water, energy
and construction related costs if "green building" practices were widely adopted. These include such
measures as designing buildings with much greater energy and water efficiency, using nontoxic glues
and paints, using sustainably harvested and certified wood and using less material in general. Other
practices include designing parking lots and other hard surfaces and treating stormwater locally so
that water naturally percolates into the ground. These practices reduce nonpoint pollution and
impacts to streamside vegetation.

We found the same to be true in agriculture. Many farms have reduced costs while conserving
streams and the environment by adopting practices such as conservation tillage, cover cropping,
installation of riparian buffers and using integrated pest management or organic farming practices.
We also found that third-party certification of sustainable farming practices can lead to increased
sales and price premiums in the sustainable or organic foods marketplace, which is growing at 20
percent annually. Consider the potential. These benefits could save farmers at least $23 million and
increase revenues by $174 million or more annually.

In sum, we found strong evidence that, even with initial investment costs, businesses that adopt
sustainable business practices often realize savings on production costs and increased net returns.
They also substantially reduce their environmental impact, some to the extent that they are no longer
even regulated. This demonstrates that the best way to avoid regulatory burdens is to design out their
environmental impacts from the start. The adoption of sustainable business practices is often just
plain good business.

While many Oregon businesses are adopting sustainable practices, our analysis also found many
obstacles that constrain their widespread adoption. It is not always easy and some industries,  and
farms will have a tougher time adopting these practices than others. Businesses with sufficient
resources, staff and funding have a better chance to adopt them on their own. Yet, many businesses
(especially small and mid-sized firms) lack awareness of the practices, or the technical knowledge,
skills, staff and resources to invest in them. Some perceive high risk associated with such conversion
or investment. Others are constrained by a regulatory system that can discourage innovation. Poorly
planned subsidies and perverse incentives also constrain their adoption.

Rather than bickering over the costs of regulation, time would be better spent removing the barriers
and helping Oregon firms and farms adopt sustainable business practices. In doing so, we may  that
there is much less conflict between the economic and the environment than we first thought.  Source:
12/28/00 Register Guard, by Bob Doppelt.

Bob Doppelt is director of the Center for Watershed and Community Health, an institute in the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University. Copies of the economic assessments described in this column are available on the center's Web site: www.upa.pdx.edu/CWCH/

Nilesh Patel stood and watched the surf pound away at the sand dune that stood between the raging Pacific and his oceanfront motel. ``I certainly had respect for Mother Nature, but now I have even more for her,'' he said. Patel wasn't alone in thinking the storm was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. A meteorologist with the National Weather Service's Portland office said the reoccurrence of a similar event was unlikely. But less than a month later, a stronger storm hit the coast, chewing away more beach. Patel once had 40 feet of dune between his business, the Tradewinds Motel, and the beach. He now has 10 feet.

Researchers think storms of such magnitude are more common than once thought, the result of wave heights gradually increasing during the past 25 years. The larger waves make for spectacular shows of  nature's force, but they also are transforming Oregon's coastline into something of a fortress as property owners armor the beach with riprap to protect investments against the erosion caused by these winter storms.

Scientists don't know what has caused the increased wave heights, but solving the mystery could allow them to forecast larger weather patterns, to tell whether the waves will continue to increase or whether a cycle has peaked and the waves will decrease. State and coastal planners want this information to help determine how much erosion to expect along Oregon's coast.

Until the answer is discovered, researchers say residents should expect the waters to get more and more rough over the next few years. Paul Komar, an Oregon State University professor, and Jonathan Allan, a post-doctoral researcher from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, co-authored a recent study of extreme wave heights on the Northwest coast for the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development.

The study found that during winter storms off Washington's coast, significant waves grew 13 feet between 1975 and 1999, when 39-foot waves were recorded. Komar considers the increase alarming because as early as 1996, a 100-year storm was expected to generate significant wave heights of 33 feet. Komar and Allan found at least five storms between 1997 and 1999 surpassed the 33-foot mark. The storm that hit Oregon on March 2, 1999, had significant wave heights of 46 feet, with individual waves as high as 78 feet.

To put a 78-foot wave in perspective, Komar said think of a wall of water as high as a 10-story building.

Komar said the findings indicate the recent winter storms are not an anomaly, but more likely a common occurrence on Oregon's coast. That kind of information can help property owners prepare for storms. New homeowners might use the information and decide to build a residence farther away from the beach or a bluff to protect it from storms.

Many coastal developments were planned using the weather patterns of the 1960s and 1970s, which were relatively calm. Where Patel once had dune, he now has a rock wall 100 feet long and 15 high protecting his motel. Each winter brings more worries about how long he'll have his property. ``Every storm to me ... looks like a bad storm,'' he said. Source: 12/18/00 Register Guard Newspaper, by The Associated Press.

"The success of Oregon's pioneering land use planning program depends on the commitment of Oregonians to protecting our farm and forest land and building communities that we are proud to call home," said Evan Manvel, director of education and research for 1000 Friends.  "These awards honor citizens who have distinguished themselves through their dedication to making Oregon a better place to live, both today and in the future."

2000 award winners include: Developer of the Year:  Tony Nielsen of Salem.  Nielsen, owner of A.C. Land Use and Development Services, is noted for his efforts both as a developer and as a citizen activist.  The award recognizes his work as project consultant for a row home infill project
being planned in Salem.  The development, within walking distance of downtown, takes advantage of nearby transit and parks, and each home has only a single-car garage.  Nielsen was applauded for bringing "a dedicated, thoughtful activism to his everyday life."

Also nominated for Developer of the Year were Siuslaw Valley Bankfor the redesign of their Florence facility and Lucy Lambkin and Tom Bowerman for Heron Place in Eugene.

Citizen Activist of the Year:  Mike Sheehan, Columbia County. Sheehan was applauded for his efforts to protect citizen involvement, limit rural residential development and aggregate mining, and develop a good sign ordinance for the county.  1000 Friends' Sid Friedman said he could be found "in the vanguard of any effort in Columbia County."  Ironically, Sheehan was unable to accept the award in person, as he was busy working on the sign ordinance and preparing for Measure 7 hearings.

Also nominated were Debby Todd and Kathleen Sullivan of Florence, David Dowrie of Corvallis; Gene Martin of Jackson County; and Bob Bates of Bend.

Local Official of the Year:  John Schubert. Bend City Councilor John Schubert has long been a voice for transportation choice, environmental protection, and well-designed development, and Bend
is better for his efforts.  The recent election of three more pro-planning city councilors gives Schubert some new allies in his work to reshape the future of the city.  1000 Friends' Becky Steckler noted that after the election, "Councilor Schubert immediately set to work, calling on a wide spectrum of people for ideas and advice.  That's the sort of dedication and character that makes John an especially impressive representative of the people."

Other nominees for Local Official of the Year included Lindsay Berryman of Medford and Eileen McGregor of Florence.

1000 Friends honored all the nominees at the organization's annual citizens' conference on December 2nd.  In announcing the awards, Manvel recalled the words of Governor Tom McCall: "Heroes are not giant statues framed against a red sky.  They are citizens who say, 'This is my community, and it's my responsibility to make it better.'"  Source: 1,000 Friends of Oregon

In April 2000, the City Council of Florence made the decision to withdraw from a mutual working
relationship with the Heceta Water District to build a filtration plant for water taken from Clear
Lake.  The reason given at the council meeting was so the city could avoid becoming involved in a
lawsuit threatened by a landowner on Clear Lake.  It was publicized by the then-city manager as a
“win - win” situation. Apparently, withdrawing from the mutual working relationship was not viewed by the City Council as a hindrance to buying water from the Heceta Water District in the future.

In past years, the City of Florence has had to rely on purchases of water from Heceta Water District
to meet the needs of the city during the summer months (June through September).  For example,
during the summer of 1998, the city wells produced 121.6 million gallons and the city purchased
79.0 million gallons from Heceta Water District.  During the summer of 1999, the city wells
produced 149.2 million gallons and the city purchased 46.4 million gallons from Heceta Water
District.

At their Oct. 11, 2000 meeting, the Lane County Board of Commissioners voted to put restrictions
on the Heceta Water District, limiting them to 1,000,000 gallons per day that could be drawn from
Clear Lake through a new pipeline on county-owned property to the new federally mandated
filtration plant.  In addition, if the lake level falls below 99 feet above sea level, then it is NO
WATER AT ALL for their customers.  The only way around this is if one property owner on Clear
Lake decides they are willing to allow flows above the one million gallon per day limit imposed by
the county on Heceta Water District.  Unfortunately, the data used by the Commissioners, provided
by Commissioner Anna Morrison, was faulty.  From the transcript of the meeting, Ms. Morrison
stated, “The other thing is that the city, in talking with them the last couple of days, are very, very
sure that they will not be dependent upon Heceta this next summer, that the expansions on their well
system will be complete.”

It is logically to be expected that the Heceta Water District will provide water to their regular customers first, and to the city of Florence only within their remaining capacity.

No information has been in the paper to indicate that anything has changed in the position of the
Commissioners since the October 11 meeting.

The County Commissioners plan to meet again on December 13 to finalize their decision to limit the
Heceta Water District in the amount of water they can draw from Clear Lake.  As of this time, there
is no indication that the faulty information provided by Commissioner Morrison has been corrected.
With the one million gallon per day limit, the purchase of water by the city from Heceta Water
District would not be possible in the quantities required in the past.

The City plans to meet the demand for water by extending their well field and adding 5 more wells.
The City has a contractor working on the placement of the wells.  In the meantime, the public works
director has been conducting non-public meetings with the property owner and developer of the 80-
acres to work out an arrangement for the establishment of additional well sites.

At the City Council meeting on October 16, 2000, the public works director briefed the City Council
on the well placement.  The public works director made the statement that the well field would not
be completely available for about 5 years.  This will then require that the City purchase water from
Heceta Water District during the summer months to meet the demand.  If the City expands during
this period, more water would be required.

My questions are then,

     1.   What has the City done to correct the information provided by Commissioner Morrison to
     the Board of Commissioners?

     2.   What does the City plan to do to ensure that the Board of Commissioners make a decision
     that will not constrain the ability of Heceta Water District to provide water to the City of
     Florence during our months of need?

    3.    If we can't get the water, what effect will this have on the growth of Florence?

Thank you for the opportunity to bring my concerns to your attention.
Source:  Public Testimony before Florence City Council.