The study also found that almost half of single people are employed in jobs paying less than an amount considered necessary to meet all expenses for food, health care, housing and also allow for modest savings and all state and federal taxes.

A living wage for a single adult in 2000 was $11.05 per hour, while a so-called "family wage" needed to support two children was $17.95 per hour, according to the study, released by the University of Washington and the lobby group Oregon action.  Researchers released the "living wage" numbers for 2000 but used 1998 figures - the latest available - to compare expenses to income.

About 57% of jobs paid more than $11.05 per hour, an amount the study considered rock bottom for a single person meeting costs without outside income, such as government assistance.  30% of jobs paid more than the "family wage," the study said.

Researchers said the study showed that little of the gains from the booming economy in the late 1990s trickled down to lower income groups that work for a living.  "This report refutes the conventional adage that a rising tide lifts all boats," said RuthAlice Anderson, a member of the board with Oregon Action.

The study also found that women and minorities were less likely to earn living wages than white males.  Only 35% of singles who were members of minority groups earned a living wage in 1998, compared to 56% for white people, the study showed.  Source: June 21, 2001, The Register-Guard, by Andrew Kramer.

Atlanta-based Home Depot can appeal the council's decision to the state Land Use Board of Appeals.  But after the council's vote, Home Depot's regional land use attorney said he "can't imagine" that the firm would try and overturn the council's vote.

For one thing, it would take six to eight months for LUBA to decide whether Home Depot should be granted a rehearing, said Frank Parisi of Portland.  Instead of possibly wasting that time in a legal challenge, Home Depot will look for a place to build an outlet in Springfield that would be more acceptable to city officials, he said.

In their comments June 4, councilors said they want Home Depot in Springfield, but just not near 28th Street and Marcola Road.  "We are taking them at their word," Parisi said.  There are other possible store sites, including a former veneer mill and log pond near 42nd and Olympic streets, Parisi said.  Since the June 4 meeting, Parisi said he has heard from a handful of Springfield property owners who wanted to know if Home Depot would be interested in their properties.  "I just turn them over to the (Home Depot) real estate guys," he said.

Home Depot will probably come up with another site for a store, Parisi said, though it's unclear when that might happen.  "It could be a week from now, or it could happen three months from now," he said. Source:  June 19, 2001, The Register-Guard, by Ed Russo.

Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, said the bill was "planning tool," not an attempt to stop housing construction.  "We build and build and build and that's fine," she said.  "We need lots of new housing in California.  All this bill says is we should not build large residential developments unless the local agency is secure in the knowledge there will be sufficient water."

Sen. Ray Haynes, R-Temecula, said the water project development hasn't been keeping up with the state's population growth and that the bill would help boost housing prices.  "What this bill says if the government does absolutely nothing to increase the supply of water you cannot build a house in California," he said.

Sen. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, said the bill would help -[protect water needed for agriculture.  "It puts further onus and burden on those who believe we need to increase that (water) supply," he said.  A 21-12 vote moved the bill to the Assembly.  For more information: www.sen.ca.gov - Senate Bill 2221  Source:  Crescent City Triplicate, June 2001.

Residents of Boise voted last week to hike property taxes for two years to raise $10 million to buy land in the Foothills, the rolling high desert outside the city.  Last month, voters in McHenry County, Ill., near Chicago, and in DeKalb County, Ga., in the Atlanta area, passed bond referendums to buy open space.  On Saturday, Hays County, Texas, near Austin, will vote on a similar $3.5 million bond issue.

And since March 31, Massachusetts towns have voted to raise property taxes as much as 3% to finance open space acquisition and other land issues.  The state's cities will vote on similar tax hikes this fall.

State referendums for open space provide bigger pots of money.  Last year, California voters approved $5 billion in acquisition funds.  But open-space advocacy groups say the action is moving to counties and municipalities, because voters are most willing to pay to keep land green when it is in their own neighborhood.  "These things have a better chance when they're more local," says Amy Kurtz of the Nature Conservancy.

In Florida, Volusia County voters cared enough about protecting environmentally sensitive land to pass a $40 million bond issue last November.  "That's the Daytona Beach area, where our poll numbers also showed people valued driving on the beach," Kurtz says.

In a survey in march by the National Association of Realtors, 74% of those polled supported local government buying land for open space.  Boise's property tax increase was supported by 59% of voters.  Passing open-space referendums by large margins encourages other places to follow suit, says Will Rogers, president of The Trust for Public Land, a non-profit land conservation group.  "That's sending a very, very strong message to elected officials," he says.  "No one's excited about being out in front on tax initiatives.  You need to see that people care ab out it."  Source: 5/31/01 USA Today, by Martha T. Moore.
 

Open-Space funding gets closer to home - Efforts to preserve open space in the USA are shifting from statewide inititives to local and county referendums.
Date	# of Local Measures	$ Cost	% of  Local Funding	% of  State Funding
November 1998	138	$540 million	10%	90%
November 1999	80	$910 million	95%	5%
November 2000	172	$2.4 billion	85%	15%
Source: Trust for Public Lands

According to Eben Fodor’s study The Cost of Growth in Oregon/1988 Report, on which Todd based her report,  taxpayers would pay in excess of $19 million dollars to cover costs of new services and infrastructure for the four areas in Florence now under consideration for annexation and development.

Understandably, most people believe that more people mean more taxes collected; therefore more money for the city.   What is not  understood by many, including officials, is the need for monies for roads, schools, water, police, fire equipment.    Each rate payer in Florence would pay for their share of PUD’s additional equipment .  She estimates that our new sewer system would last for only fifteen years instead of twenty.  The city would be responsible for stormwater flooding problems in an area that is already impacted, and where that situation can only be made worse by development.

It would be much cheaper to build, or re-develop, on existing lots within the city limits.  It seems to me that it behooves us to read Fodor’s study (http://www.efn.org/~fodor/Resources/Executive_Summary.html) and Todd’s report,  which are  on the internet.  Perhaps there are other studies available which would be good to know about.  Otherwise, aren't we buying “a pig in a poke” as the saying goes?  Source: Letter to Editor - Bernice Dain

In a June 6th letter to the mayor, DLCD Director Dick Benner urged the city to consider rescinding the ordinance action and asked for the needs analysis to be re-submitted as a planning work task under the Department’s more detailed periodic review process. “We recognize that this proposed amendment would not actually amend the UGB itself, but it does establish the need to amend the UGB.”  Benner added, “Acknowledging McMinnville’s plan amendment may effectively deprive LCDC of the opportunity to review all relevant matters that bear upon expansion of the city’s UGB…(w)e have no choice but to appeal.”

In addition to the important procedural issues, the Department has told the City that it continues to have concerns about the computation of buildable lands and lack of adequate information and inappropriate methodology “to determine if future needed average housing density and overall housing mix is different from what is currently provided in McMinnville.”  In its referral to LCDC, the Department reports that its primary concern is that “the city’s projection for future housing needs is not based on an adequate analysis of affordability based on housing price ranges and rent levels.”
Pursuant to a new procedure outlined in a 1999 land use statute (OR Revised Statute 197.626), cities with a population greater than 2500 and a desire to amend their UGB to add more than 50 acres must submit their proposal to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) as though it is a periodic review work task.  An explanation of the new law (SB 543) and the statewide planning goals can be found at LCDC Publications and LCDC GOALS. Source:  June 6, 2001, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development.