Is Corvallis anti-growth?

[jjpop]

I think it used to be much worse here than it is now. I think city leaders and residents have historically been nervous about malls, big box stores, or even any chains coming in and "ruining" downtown.

But the tide is changing here in Corvallis, and it happened right as the population crossed 50,000. Maybe Corvallis got placed on some lists that it wasn't on when there were only 49,000 people here. I don't know, but in the span of the 10 years I've lived here (this time--I also lived here for a couple years in the mid-80s) Corvallis has added the following chain stores/restaurants: Borders, Bed Bath and Beyond, Coldstone Creamery, Applebees, Ruby Tuesday, Home Depot, Staples, Office Max, Ross, Noah's Bagels, Qdoba, Jamba Juice, Baja Fresh, Carl's Jr., and probably a few others that I'm not remembering. This has all happened without compromising the integrity of the Central Business District.

Personally, I have to ask what people are comparing Corvallis to that make them label Corvallis "anti-growth"? I think the examples of uncontrolled growth, sprawl, and disregard for the Central Business District are far more numerous than the anti-growth examples. Why isn't it OK that Corvallis approaches growth in a different manner (i.e. slower)? Why do people think there's something wrong with Corvallis if it doesn't charge full steam ahead with construction projects rather than taking the slow, measured approach it does?

I know some will say that it's hypocritical for Corvallis residents to tout how environmentally friendly we are, then drive 20 miles roundtrip to Costco. I can't argue against that. But I think the real true-to-the-core environmentalists don't drive to Albany to shop anyway. The rest of us (myself included) don't mind the drive and feel it's a small price to pay for maintaining Corvallis's integrity. But in the interest of full disclosure, I wouldn't mind if Costco put a store here in town

I think the end result of the new development in town has been a net positive for everyone, including the stores in downtown.

[Anchorless]

Originally Posted by freedom

We have a 5% footprint on this state. You obviously have issues with the right to property, and the pursuit of happiness.
Not everyone wants to live in a congested, highrise city like Portland. Some like to live out in that rural land that you wish to micro manage.

I liken it to a rancher that has a million head of cattle, yet won't slaughter a single one in order to feed his family, because the waste product might hurt the water shed.

Preservation for preservations sake in oppressive. It is an ideology that creates land cops and ties the hands of free people. Binds down and burdens the pursuit of happiness.
We are seeing the effects on peoples happiness, when we look at how the timber industry was destroyed in this state by the excuse of a tree vole and an owl. Which was under attack by barn owls and not loggers. oooppppps...

God this is such a pathetic view.

It's pretty transparent, too. It reads "who gives a crap about anything else so long as I make money off of my developments."

Congrats, sir.

[freedom]

Originally Posted by Anchorless

God this is such a pathetic view.

It's pretty transparent, too. It reads "who gives a crap about anything else so long as I make money off of my developments."

Congrats, sir.

First off, your rude...

Second i do care about many things other than making money. I was born into a system that requires money in order to feed my kids and pay people to work. The alternative is being fed by the gov't, which I use to have to do.

Now I pay into the gov't and they feed people that were like me 15 yrs. ago.

We use to have over 20 lumber mills in our county that gave living wages to the workers. Enviros and a poorly thought out endangered species argument took ALL of those jobs away except for 1 lumber mill that lives on yr. to yr. on its own land holdings.

When you have a better understanding of how people are important, I would love to dialogue with you.

freedom

[esya]

A discussion of "job creation" statistics by industry is must be factually limited by the locale, the length of time that is used to evaluate the community utility of the jobs, and many other intangible factors. When businesses can pull up and move from one local to the other, they can pit unmoveable communities against other communities across the country. The question for anyone that does NOT want to chase jobs around the world their whole life is, How long do will this industry last in my town or county, and what do they leave with us if they leave us? Plenty of other activities also create jobs, are not federally underwritten by the mortgage loan insurance industry (although many are also underwritten), and so forth.

You can claim an intellectual victory but can't prove it either. Very few people that came to Colorado, for example, actually stayed and started other businesses. They just went somewhere else to build houses. Sadly, the US has one of the most transient work forces in the world if you count all the times in a lifetime that people move for one job or another. That is not creating community.

[esya]

Corvallis no doubt got on many chain expansion lists the same reason most towns get on it--they hit the requisite population base to make a profit for the corporation after deduction of the startup and ongoing concern costs.

After rereading this thread several times it seems there is a confusion between the definition of "development" as land development for homes, and development of commercially zoned property for new retail businesses. They are different and the same in many ways. To me development is use of land with a prior use, for a new use that takes away farm or open space land, not necessarily infill development. However, many of the criticisms I have made elsewhere might be applied by some to chains--that they take the bulk of the local money and move it out of the locale. At least a local builder does not do that, if in fact the builder is truly local. They might, though, convert land to new uses with the permission of local land use ordinances. Even infill can get objections--such as the complaints of people who don't want to look at a four story building where there was a one story building before.

[osp14318583]

Been that way since 1970s.

[Comedy]

Originally Posted by freedom

IMO, all of Oregon is anti smart growth, they want everyone to live in cities, and make it very difficult to develop in the Rurals. People moving here for the most part would like at least an acre, or more, be within 10 miles of a supporting town, and have a country atmosphere with market convienience.

Since Gov. McCall put the most stringent zoning restrictions in, the state has adopted rediculous and very expensive building and developing codes. This has caused the price of homes and land to skyrocket, (supply and demand).

Only the wealthy will be able and are now able to afford the privilege of living here in the rurals. Thanks to the governments ursurping of Property Rights.

freedom

Its funny to see people complain about rising housing costs. Look, Corvallis doesn't even compare to Boulder, CO. Boulder buys up all the surrounding land so commercial and residential CAN'T build. Youde be luck to find a cardboard box with cut out windows for less than $500k.

I know this was written in 2007, and the prices of homes have dropped since that was written, but you want the prices to go up. Especially since all the people who bought at high prices would be in danger of foreclosure if prices drop too quickly and it makes your banks look like idiots for giving out bad loans.

Just because you can't buy a house today doesn't meen you can't buy one tomorrow. Go buy a house in Albany, live in it for a few years, get some equity and sell that house and move into Corvallis.

Also, Corvallis is a great town and thats why people will pay anything to be a part of it.