Actually, we're already paying for those disasters; most of us just don't know it yet. The folks who caused them huff angrily at suggestions that settled taxpayers are subsidizing newcomers.

But that's what's happening.

People born in Washington, or who moved here at an optimal time, 1950, or 1960, or the l970s, paid taxes for the roads, schools and other services their local governments built for them. By the '80s and '90s they expected to burn the mortgage. But immigration happens; people are flocking here from all over the United States, beckoned by "most livable" messages filling glossy magazines.

Californians by the tens of thousands sold their mansions, paid off their own mortgages early and, their pockets full of cash, moved north — fleeing the growth they created. Others, poor, jobless and homeless, heard rumors —  "Boeing is hiring" — and reports of generous welfare grants, bundled the family into the pre-owned car and joined the exodus.

Exaggeration? Look at tear-jerk newspaper stories of society's victims and count how many just arrived and can't find a job. Read letters to the editor from newcomers outraged at their new tax rate, reality in Washington's "highest and best use" tax system.

Yes, newcomers help pay for new schools and water and sewer systems, but earlier residents, having already bought those amenities, are paying again and again. Communities across the country, from Loudon County, Va., to Modesto, Calif., are questioning the growth myth. Costs of new roads to cope with automobile congestion are just the most obvious.

Not so evident but more insidious are health costs of air pollution from auto exhaust. Schools — kindergartens to universities — add to the costs of growth,  in new buildings, salaries for additional teachers, school buses. Rising school levies, regular and special, fuel bitter public debates.

Crime, growing with the population, afflicts individuals and, collectively, taxpayers in demands on the criminal justice system: more police, more courtrooms, more judges, more jails and prisons.  For decades development pitchmen have tried to brainwash us into believing that increasing populations, more taxpayers, strip malls and big box stores paying minimum wages, will cause our tax bills to go down. "Growth pays for growth," is their mantra.

But study after study shows the opposite. Growth does not pay for itself, says a  report by the Columbia Public Interest Policy Institute in Eugene. Its report, "The Cost of Growth in Washington State," challenges the conventional wisdom which holds that growth increases the tax base, "thereby reducing the overall tax burden."   Another study on costs of community services by the American Farmland Trust, a nonprofit conservation organization, together with a grass roots group in Skagit County, spells out clearly who is paying for growth there.

Rural open lands, farms and forests, require less infrastructure, fewer roads, and water, and sewer systems and schools, the study said. "Because of these  modest services requirements, open land actually created a surplus of (tax) revenue for the county."  For every dollar of taxes collected from farm, forest and open lands, the cost, chiefly for roads, was only 51 cents. On the other hand, "residential development overall did not pay for itself, requiring $1.25 in services for every dollar of (tax) revenue generated."

"You can't stop growth," the growth industry stubbornly proclaims. Paired with that silly shibboleth is its twin: "If we build it they will come." They're right on that one. If we don't slow and eventually stop growth, roads will choke, subdivisions will fill every fertile valley, cover every forested hill, until there is no place left.

Victims of the growth industry unwittingly subsidize the destruction of their own neighborhoods and pay for the privilege in property taxes driven ever higher by the costs of roads, water and sewer systems, police and fire services, libraries, city halls and schools to accommodate newcomers. Local officials, policy makers, and taxpayers have known all this, deep in their brains, for decades. It's time they accept those truths.

Impact fees, which the state Growth Management Act allows local governments to levy on new development to pay for new growth, are an attempt to bring fairness to property tax growth by curbing sprawl. They enrage developers, some local officials and land speculators. Such fees, they proclaim, are added property taxes. Many property owners swallow that line and then wonder why their taxes continue spiraling upward.

Opposing the further trashing of our once verdant land is possible, but it takes political will, fighting city hall and staring down bullies who believe the Earth is their commodity. Educating the neighbors to protest proposed new sewer trunk lines and development permits is the first step.

I confess I was once an accomplice to growth. For 35 years I wrote newspaper stories and columns plugging freeways, railroads and, my favorite, a monorail, between Seattle and Olympia, where I lived for 45 years. Friends warned me that I was not going to like what I was promoting. They were right.

Growth metastacizes in the body politic. Olympia is still a nice place to live, and to raise kids. Schools are good, but it is strangling in growth as it increasingly becomes another Seattle bedroom community. Local governments, albeit often muddled, are decent and generally well intentioned. But like most others across the country they're subservient to developers.

"If we build it they will come."  They'll come and keep coming, and they'll fetch their neighbors from Iowa and Arkansas and their sisters and their cousins and their aunts. And, when all those newcomers settle here, we've been taught to believe, they'll create new jobs and the taxes they pay will lighten the burden for people already here.

Yeah.

This magic is called "broadening the tax base." Next to belief in Santa Claus it's our most enduring myth. When America was young there was substance to the idea that growth was good. New communities do need roads, schools, sewer systems.  Until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most new construction did pay for  itself by expanding the tax base. But there's a limit.

"Smart growth" still works, if you're a developer. But if you're a taxpayer, a homeowner, a small business person, a worker, blue or white collar, more people means more taxes for all, old timers and newcomers alike. At some  point you're going to be crowded by growth and paying for the discomfort.  We don't build new towns any more; instead we put up subdivisions to suck populations out into the countryside, into ever newer subdivisions, sprawling often without sidewalks or nearby commercial services. Cities are left crumbling behind while developers take their loot to bless new paradises with growth. And
 we'll all live happily ever after.

Cities are beleagured by developers and the state Transportation Department, growth's advance guard, bulldozers their battle tanks. There goes Olympia, see new Bellevues pop up all over the place. New freeways are terraced up the western Cascades — Interstate 405, soon 605, is 805 next? More automobile exhaust, more smog, more crime.

Land speculators flaunt the "proppity rights" flag in fierce, twisted patriotism turned to rage, hatred of all government. "Nobody's gonna tell me what I can do  with my land."  The growth industry's tactics are intimidation, loud mouths erupting in endless mind-numbing hearings before legislative committees, city and county councils and planning commissions. Mercenaries in this urban guerrilla warfare are land-use lawyers, coaching clients venting bile at farmers and home owners daring to believe their right to property enjoyment is as valid as the speculator's and developer's.

"You're against growth? What kind of Commie are you? Go back to Russia if you don't like it here."

Growth and its feeder, population, pivot on the "jobs, jobs" argument. If we stop sprawling how will those road workers, loggers, house builders, carpenters, painters, cement finishers, feed their families?

Well, Europe thrives in farmlands green and productive. Cities hundreds of years older than ours thrive without sprawl. We can do as well. Replacing the ticky  tacky oozing up everywhere will provide decent jobs for workers, opportunities for builder-entreprenuers. Monster trucks ensure work forever rebuilding freeways.

Is it selfish to oppose growth for newcomers, immigrants? Developers, not otherwise sympathetic to poor folks, toot that horn, too. Challenging growth will require thinking and leadership, by businesspeople, politicians and taxpayers. But it can be done.

We're dog-paddling against a rising tide of sprawl, congestion and blight. We moan and whine about it but never speak the answer — take in the WELCOME mat. Let would-be immigrants go elsewhere. There are still places to accept growth, and need it, until mankind devises the ultimate cure for the growth cancer — population control.

Of course you can stop growth. Just do it. Just say "enough."

Mike Layton was for many years an Olympia-based reporter and columnist covering the Legislature and politics.  Source:  The Seattle Times, by Mike Layton, Special to The Times.

Council members said they rejected the annexation because plans for the 45-acre property did not follow the city’s long-range growth plan and included too much retail space that could draw business from downtown. The project at the Kuebler Boulevard intersection with I-5 would have been sliced into retail, office and residential uses.

Designers offered to change the plan several times to reduce the amount of retail space and add multifamily housing. The council did not accept those plans and based its decision on the developer’s original plans.  Councilor Wes Bennett, whose ward the land is in, said the development would have put too much strain on the neighborhood’s roads and schools. Councilor Anna Braun said the developer’s attempt at creating a mixed-use area was an illusion. It did not actually follow the philosophy of Salem Futures, a long-range growth management plan.   “It was very much auto-oriented, and that is not what we are after with Salem Futures,” Braun said.  Councilor Rick Stucky supported the denial but predicted that the issue would come up again and that the only way neighbors would approve of it would be if it were dotted with single family homes.

The council approved new annexation rules in March that require builders to reveal how they are going to use the land. By law, all annexation requests must be approved by voters. Councilor Kasia Quillinan said the new law is working as it should.  Without it, the council and voters would not have known what was going to be built.  Source:  June 25, 2002, Statesman Journal, by Tara McLain.

"This has been a real learning experience for me," said Zane Ziemer, who had filed a referendum petition with the City of Florence, "and apparently for the City of Florence as well.  When we filed the referendum with the City, we were not informed of the details of the annexation process. After about a week, the city sent us a letter telling us that we couldn't file a referendum because, ‘the subject of the prospective petition is not proper for referral'." According to Ziemer, "After a lot of digging, and spending some money on an attorney, we found out how the process works.  We learned that taxpayers still have some ability to comment on annexations, even in Lane County."

Lane County Annexation Process:

Unlike every other county in Oregon, rules covering annexations in Lane County are unique.  All annexations to cities located within Lane County can be approved only by the Lane County Boundary Commission.  The process for annexation begins with a "petition" at the city level.  The petition can be initiated by the either the city or those living in the area to be annexed, with certain restrictions.  Under certain conditions, as in this case, there is no requirement that public notice or a public hearing be held before the city decides to process the annexation.

Then the petition, or proposal, goes on to the Lane County Boundary Commission for determination of whether or not it meets state and city laws.  If the annexation does not appear to be opposed, and meets the Commission's criteria, then the Boundary Commission can issue a decision without any public hearing.  However, if there is opposition, the Boundary Commission will usually provide public notice and hold a hearing before making its final decision.  The Commission has the option of approving, denying, or altering the annexation proposal.

Once the Boundary Commission approves an annexation, those objecting to the annexation have the option of forcing the issue to an election of the people (electors).  In order to force an election, the objectors must submit written objections signed by at least 10% of the electors of the area within 45 days.  As annexation petitions to the Boundary Commission can also be initiated by property owners, the city also has the option of objecting and requiring an election.  If there are no objections to the Commission approval, the annexation becomes final.

"We definitely intend to object and request a public hearing at the Boundary Commission level," said Ziemer.  "We are very  concerned that the City has not considered what it is going to cost existing Florence taxpayers if this annexation is approved.  They certainly never spelled out how much it would cost the city in any public hearings."  As justification for his opposition, Ziemer cited, among other things, the community's current water supply problem, and noted that the "next step up in well water production is going to cost us taxpayers $12 million. This community can pump only so much water from the wells without having to build an entirely new water treatment facility."  Citing an old proverb, Ziemer said, "The Florence camel has a full load  - and this 50+ acre residential and industrial annexation could be the straw that breaks the camel's back."
Source:  7/12/02 News Release, Zane Ziemer.
Editor's Note:  Mr. Ziemer is also president of Citizens For Florence.  However, CFF is not affiliated with this action.  Also see: CFF information about this and other proposed Florence annexations: http://www.citizensforflorence.com/City/city-com-comdev1.html

The Legislature helped create these current budget crises in many cases by preventing local jurisdictions from addressing money problems cased by unfunded state mandates and policies.  The state has promoted growth and in-migration through bad public policies and land-use laws.

Especially to blame is the state law mandating a 20-year buildable supply of land within cities' urban growth boundaries.  This locks in place a harmful "growth at any cost" mentality.  This mandate, in essence, forces communities to grow (sometimes against their will) and taxpayers to subsidize that growth while lowering their current level of public services and quality of life.

When the state gives away the farm through subsidies (tax breaks) to attract income tax revenue through growth, it will eventually experience a bust.  There will always be busts and it's the communities that will bear the brunt of state budget and program slashing.  Affected citizens who raise these issues are immediately marginalized.  They are called "anti-growth zealots," "NIMBYs," "xenophobes" ore other nasty names when the real issue is how do we pay for the infrastructure to maintain necessary public services?

Cities can obtain limited cost recovery through system development charges but not for the big items: schools, police, fire and libraries.  State law has prohibited SDCs for these essential services since the 1989 SDC Act was passed.

The building and development lobbies convinced the Legislature to outlaw SDCs for these purposes.  This is damaging the state's livability and needs to be repealed in the 2003 legislative session.  Just think what 13 years of missed opportunity to recover these costs has had on your community's current budget problems. Meanwhile, we are two special sessions down with a  third on the way.  We have lawsuits and bitter disputes over the budget deal Gov. John Kitzhaber made during the last try.  The entire process seems headed for stalemate.

But the budget crisis grows bigger by the day.

The latest bombshell is the $8.5 billion hit the Public Employee Retirement System fund took.  This is estimated to cost state and local governments (the taxpayers) an additional $260 million per year to make up the difference.  It almost certainly means more cuts and will only make the third upcoming special session a nightmare for everybody.

As in the Middle East, both sides are engaged in battle with their positions locked in stone.  Oregon's citizens are caught in between.  It is virtually certain that average citizens and human services will suffer, while the lobbyists and their money protect special interest groups. In recent debates, the candidates for governor all declined to speak about how they would handle these crises.  Small wonder, then, that news reports say there is little public interest in this race.  people want leadership, but are not finding it.

Oregon's bridges and highways are falling apart form age and over-capacity use.  Law enforcement officials fear that budget cuts will lead to early release and limited prosecution of criminals.  This is jut the tip of the iceberg.  If the state is going to promote growth through unfunded mandates using taxpayer subsidies, then we should all stop and rethink the impact of all this growth and development.  The big question is who will pay for the necessary infrastructure (schools, police, fire, libraries, etc.) to support that growth and the responsibility that comes with it?

In May and November, Oregon will elect a new governor and Legislature.  Neither will even begin to solve the budget crisis unless they change Oregon's growth policies.  If they do not, you can be certain that there will be more budget crises and a lower quality of life for you and your family.

People need to get a commitment from their candidates on where they stand on growth subsidies and the deepening school funding crises.  The cries go out from communities across the state:  "We want vision and leadership in Salem!"  Don't settle for less.  Oregon has been a wonderful place to live and work.  Let's keep it that way.

Jeff Lamb is a Philomath business owner and chairman  of Oregon Communities for a Voice in Annexations.  He was a co-sponsor of an initiative that would have legalized school system development charges.
 Source:  May 7, 2002 Corvallis Gazette-Times Opinion by Jeff Lamb.

According to Ziemer, this type of annexation (requested by the property owners) does not normally require a public hearing.  But Ziemer says the fiscal impact of this annexation, along with associated land use issues, should have prompted a common-sense decision by the city to hold a public hearing.  "I have significant doubts," said Ziemer, "that this
annexation would have been approved if all the costs to the taxpayers were considered.  I believe that pressure by local developers has, unfortunately, carried more weight with our elected officials than what is in the 'best interest of the community'."

"Most local governments have systems development charges which cover some of the cost to taxpayers, but according to a report from the Governor's Task Force on Growth, annexing one empty lot for one new house can cost Oregon taxpayers over $30,000.  In Florence, systems development charges cover only about $4,000 of that cost." said Ziemer.

"In addition to other costs to taxpayers, this annexation will have a significant impact on Florence's ability to provide water to existing customers," said Ziemer.  According to Ziemer, the city of Florence currently does not have sufficient water to serve these properties.  "The city is in a bit of a pickle right now.  They're trying to bring some new municipal wells on-line, at an expected cost of about $3 million.  Even after they get the new wells on line, there will not be enough water for future 'growth'.  The next step up in water production will cost over $12 million for a new treatment plant," explained Ziemer.  "I think the community should have as strong a voice as developers when it comes to how their tax dollars are spent."

The City of Florence annexation approval has also been met with an appeal to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals by a local watchdog group, Citizens For Florence.  Source:  6/29/02 News Release, Zane Ziemer.
Editor's Note:  Mr. Ziemer is also president of Citizens For Florence.  However, CFF is not affiliated with this action.