Eben Fodor, the study's author, makes an important distinction between urban growth and economic growth. He analyzed the former, and found that taxpayers subsidized infrastructure to accommodate growth - schools, roads, utilities, libraries - in 2000 at a cost of $738 million. In addition, they provided $257 million in economic development subsidies, paid $33 million for planning and development services and lost $115 million due to costs associated with increased traffic congestion.

That's a lot of money. The implication is that if Oregon stopped growing, or adopted fees and charges to make newcomers pay their own way, all that money would stay in taxpayers' pockets. Then, says Sarah Sameh, executive director of Alternative to Growth Oregon, "we can put more money into public education and other state services, and we won't have to balance the budget on the backs of schoolchildren."

But surely it's not that simple. If it were, slow-growing Coos County would be better off economically than fast-growing Washington County. Instead, the places in Oregon that have experienced the least growth in recent decades are the most economically depressed, while the Portland metropolitan area, which was booming until recently and should be staggering under the burden of growth-related costs, is the state's most affluent region.

That doesn't mean Fodor is wrong - growth clearly imposes costs. The bill is presented every time a new school is built, a sewage treatment plant is expanded or more police are hired. A public discussion of how those costs should be paid and by  whom would be worthwhile.

But an expanded study might be expected to find that the public cost of growth varies widely from case to case, and that some types of growth generate benefits. Examples are easy to imagine: A family that moves into an existing house creates fewer demands for additional public services than one that buys a home in a new subdivision. A family that moves to Oregon and sends its children to Eugene schools helps make better use of the infrastructure of a district with declining enrollment rather than creating pressure for the construction of new schools.

These differences account for state and local governments' efforts to encourage compact urban growth, and underlie the rationale for the urban growth boundaries that are central to the state's land use planning system. The idea is that the expenses of growth can be reduced or eliminated by making good use of the existing public infrastructure. Fodor's study could be used as an argument against poor planning rather than an argument against growth.

The study raises a deeper question: If urban growth is an economic loser, why does it happen? Cities have arisen throughout history. Urban growth has occurred in centrally planned economies that removed the profit motive from developers' calculations, and in free-market economies where planning is regarded as an intrusion on property rights. That would not have happened if urban growth comes with an unavoidable economic penalty. Urban growth must bring advantages - economic, social, cultural or all three - sufficient to overcome the costs.

Alternatives to Growth Oregon was looking for an answer when it asked Foder to quantify the costs of growth. Instead, it got more questions: Which types of growth are most costly? Which types produce net benefits? How can communities pursue the latter and avoid the former? If growth is costly, so too is stagnation or decline - where does the balance lie between the two? There's enough here to keep Fodor busy for a while.  Source:  3/28/02 - The Register-Guard, Editorial.
Also see:
03/15/02 - Sustainable Growth - Florence City Club Presentation
07/27/01 - Quick Facts About Sprawl
11/01/01 - Florence Proposes $19 Million Annexations
"The Cost of Growth in Oregon" by Eben Fodor.

The group, which wants to curtail growth, is the first to attach a dollar figure to such subsidies. They say Oregon has put out the welcome mat for new residents who don't pay their fair share.  Critics of the report from the business and development community say the $1 billion figure is an exaggeration and argued with assumptions of the study's author, Eugene land-use consultant Eben Fodor. ``There's just some terrible math that the anti-growth people tend to use in these things,'' said Randall Pozdena of the economic consulting firm ECONorthwest. ``A lot of what people fret about turns out to be bad accounting.''

Backers, however, say they have public support, citing a 2001 Metro poll in which 54 percent of respondents wanted their government to slow growth.

Alternatives to Growth suggests charging developers and new residents for the costs of growth as one way to discourage people from moving to Oregon, to preserve natural areas and to reduce congestion.

``People are sensing a loss of elbow room,'' said Sarah Sameh, executive director of the group. ``I think people are feeling the crunch and want to preserve their quality of life.''

The study said that infrastructure costs led to the biggest subsidy: $752 million. That money went toward roads, sewers, parks, libraries and other improvements necessitated by new development, Fodor said.  Developers pay local governments an average of $7,800 in systems development charges for every single-family home they build, according to the study. Developers pass those costs along to new home owners. But a typical new house requires $22,500 worth of  improvements to the surrounding area, the study says, meaning that the charges cover just 34 percent of costs. Fodor estimated the fees and costs, rather than tabulating money spent and received by every city and county.

``The public is unaware of these subsidies,'' Fodor said. ``They don't know the subsidies exist. Or if they do know, they have no idea what the magnitude is.''  Source:  3/27/02, The Register-Guard, by The Associated Press (Portland).
Also see:
"The Cost of Growth in Oregon" by Eben Fodor
Alternatives to Growth - Oregon

But in one coastal city, Florence, the potential suit has mistakenly drawn focus and craze. A
misunderstanding between Coos County and the Florence Chamber of Commerce resulted in the
chamber being listed as a co-plaintiff on a notice of intent to sue filed Jan 17.

"The chamber is not involved," said Executive Director Sandee Hansen. "What the chamber has had has been a couple of community forums so we could hear both sides of the issue. Hansen said the chamber remains neutral on the issue of the suit, but explaining that to numerous callers has been time-consuming.  "It caused us a lot of surprise," Hansen said. "The mayor got a call from the Audubon Society. Then he called me."

It was an apparent miscommunication between the chamber and Coos County officials that resulted in the error. The chamber had been asked to join into the suit and notice was sent to the Pacific Legal Foundation that it had agreed.

The chamber hadn't.

"We were asked to sign on the lawsuit and we declined," Hansen said.  Hansen said chamber members felt uncertain about the financial aspect of the suit.  "It wasn't clear to us, for instance, if we lost the lawsuit if any kind of financial responsibility would come back to us," Hansen said.

According to an initial version of a contract with the Pacific Legal Foundation, the foundation will take on any costs of the suit minus administrative fees of about $4,000. If the suit is lost and the court orders the plaintiffs to pay legal costs, however, the Pacific Legal Foundation would have no
responsibility.

Florence Mayor Alan Burns said the city also was flooded with phone calls the past week asking if the council had taken an official position on the suit. Burns said the city had not.   "What bugs me the most is the gossip," he said. "They're reading more things into it, just the proverbial stretching of the truth." Burns said city officials have never discussed Coos County's proposed suit against Fish and Wildlife and have taken no action to either support or join the legal action.

Still, Burns didn't stop from offering his opinion of the suit, which he sees as producing a rift between ATV riders and hikers in the Florence area.  "I find extremists on both ends are going to stretch the truth to make their sides look better," he said.  Burns said he sees the suit as defining a gray line between rights of motorized recreationalists and those who enjoy the coast on foot.  "Now we're defining whose recreating is more important," Burns said. "That will hurt the community." Source: The Worldlink.com, by Andrew Sirocchi, Staff Writer.

Since 1994, more than 60 U.S. cities have adopted such laws, which mandate minimum wages well above the federal floor.  But critics have argued that requiring firms to pay more than the federal $5.15 an hour minimum leads to layoffs while benefiting only the fortunate workers who keep their jobs.

The new study by the Pacific Policy Institute of California, a private, nonprofit research group, will encourage living wage advocates.  "Living wages actually reduce poverty," said author David Neumark, an economics professor at Michigan State University, "If someone's ... saying these are a disaster, they may believe it, but there's really no evidence."

Most living wage laws cover only city employees or private firms with significant government contracts.  Neumark said the average pay raise is 3.5 percent, though it may be significantly higher for some workers.  Baltimore passed the first living wage law, with Boston, Chicago, Denver, Detroit and Portland among the cities that followed.

The study used census data from 1996 through 2000.  During that time, urban poverty fell, but cities with living wage laws saw even greater decreases, Neumark said.  The study concludes that cities with a living wage 50 percent higher than federal or state minimums see poverty fall 1.8 percentage points.

Meantime, the lowest 10 percent of wage earners in those cities would experience a 7 percent increase in unemployment.  Source:  3/17/02, Eugene Register-Guard, by Associated Press reporter Justin Pritchard.

Also see:  CFF Proposal to City of Florence on Living Wage Jobs

Sorenson was given a 100 percent rating while Morrison went 0-for-7 on the issues that were the basis of the conservation group's second evaluation of the commissioners in two years. Sorenson received a perfect score and Morrison a 20 percent rating in February 2000.

Each of the three remaining commissioners - Bill Dwyer, Cindy Weeldreyer and Bobby Green - showed some improvement in the current rankings. Dwyer's score rose to 71 percent from 60 percent two years ago, Weeldreyer's increased to 17 percent from zero, and Green's inched up to 14 percent from 13 percent. "It's disappointing to see three of our five commissioners earning failing grades," said Hillary Johnson, Lane County chairwoman of the conservation voters' league. "But we're happy to see Commissioner Sorenson working to protect Lane County's environment, and Commissioner Dwyer is definitely doing a good job."

Neither Sorenson nor Morrison could be reached Monday, but their fellow commissioners expressed doubts about a ranking based on just seven votes out of the dozens taken by the board in the past two years. "I don't vote thinking about what they're going to score me," Dwyer said. "I vote what I feel is right. If that happens to coincide with their opinion, that's wonderful."

Weeldreyer - who is in Washington, D.C., on an annual lobbying trip - joked that her rise from worst to third in the rankings "is  not going to go over well with the voters in east Lane County." Hers is considered the most conservative of the county's five districts. "It's unfortunate they choose such a narrow range of issues," Weeldreyer said. "It skews the picture, and the rhetoric that goes along with it seems to be accusatory that people are anti-environment. And that's just not true, in my case." Green said his purpose as a commissioner is to represent a "broader constituency" than that of the conservation voters' league. "This group is what I consider to be a very narrowly focused group, with an agenda," he said.

The current scorecard was based on seven votes considered landmark issues in endangered species protection, forest conservation, sprawl control, water quality and mining:

•  The board's October 2000 vote to amend riparian protection provisions to bring the county into compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act's listing of spring Chinook salmon;

•  An April 2001 vote that rejected a salmon recovery plan that had been recommended by the county planning commission;

•  A July 2000 vote to send a letter to the U.S. Forest Service in opposition to the agency's policy protecting roadless areas in national forests;

•  A March 2000 vote to rezone Mohawk Valley farmland for use as a rural subdivision;

•  A February 2001 vote to hear an appeal of a hearings officer's denial in a Mosby Creek area subdivision proposal;

•  An August 2000 vote to redesignate property on Lost Creek near Dexter from agricultural to rural residential use;

•  And a vote this January in which commissioners found that a "significant aggregate resource" exists beneath 575 acres of  farmland north of Santa Clara that Eugene Sand & Gravel has leased as the site of a proposed gravel mine.

Johnson, the conservation group's chairwoman, said the issues were chosen after a review of minutes from commissioners' meetings and a series of talks with community members involved in various conservation efforts.

"We chose the seven votes we thought best reflected what's happening with Lane County's environment," Johnson said. "It's scorecards like these that keep these issues in front of the commissioners and in front of voters."

The league's local chapter was the first in Oregon to rate county commissioners' voting records. It produces similar scorecards to evaluate the voting records of Eugene city councilors.  Source: 3/5/02, The Register-Guard, by Joe Mosley.
Also see: Link to: Oregon League of Conservation Voters