Is Corvallis anti-growth? (Portland, Salem, Bend: for sale, real estate, houses)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The lack of a large retailer (such as a Wal-Mart Supercenter, Costco, or similar) within city limits means that people FROM Corvallis go to Lebanon or up to the Salem area to do that sort of shopping. The city of Corvallis loses out on the potential tax revenue, without actually improving the "character" of the city (9th Street is already a commercial retailing strip, like it or not - it's not like that gigantic Rite-Aid is any less generic or sprawling than a Wal-Mart would be).
The average house price within Corvallis is now over $300,000, meaning that many people are being priced out of the market, and forced to live away from where they work - increasing the amount of auto traffic into the city.
Is Corvallis being well-served by the anti-growth elements on its city council, or is it time to look at some realistic options for smarter growth?
Since I don't shop at Wally World, it is hard for me to imagine how the lack of one is a problem. How else has Corvallis limited growth? Are they short of water or sewer capacity? That's the only way I can imagine a city limiting growth under current state law. They have to maintain a 20 year inventory of buildable land within the Urban Growth Boundary, and they have to approve subdivisions that meet city standards. I suspect the McMansion movement is just due to a lot of people with a lot of money who want to live in Corvallis. Hewlett-Packard and CH2M-Hill are not exactly small time operations. There are less well known manufacurers in the area. For instance, a lot of the pre-cast concrete beams on the West Coast come out of Corvallis.
Manufacturing operations pump lots of money into a local economy. Wal-Mart, and other big box retail operations, suck the money out of a local economy. It sounds to me like Corvallis is rolling in money because of good planning.
Ahhh, but IF the question is about Corvallis' attitude toward growth, there is a different slant.
There would be a HUGE public outcry at any council meeting where a Wal-Mart or a Costco...or other big box store were to be proposed. There is a character of Corvallis that many of the residents would vocally and actively try to maintain.
As for housing prices:
Lot sizes are small for new housing, mostly due to the high cost of the land (to purchase AND to develop). Building codes for development are very restrictive, and force the developer to take many high cost steps, especially with green-building standards. (I'm not saying its good or bad...just expensive)...this drives the size of the lots down and the price of homes UP.
Demand for housing has remained consistently high, despite the costs. The University, HP, and other major high tech employers in the area, along with the general appeal of Corvallis as a place to live keep the real estate engine running....right now there is LESS THAN 4 months of inventory for sale in Corvallis...with the average SOLD price of the 58 homes sold in June at $301,000.
There are currently only about 195 homes on the market (average asking price is $370K).
Just my thoughts.
Dave
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.
You see, Corvallis already HAS big-box retail. The problem is, the big-boxes Corvallis DOES have tend to be pathetic.
For example, let's say you live in Corvallis and want to buy a new air conditioner for your house. Where do you buy it? Probably either up at the nearest Costco, or over at the Wal-Mart store in Lebanon.
Corvallis as a city fails to capture this retail revenue stream because of its misguided attitude toward growth. City council needs to understand that not all parts of the city are at the density of downtown. Portland allowed an IKEA store to be built within its city limits, but the location (near the I-205 freeway) made economic and developmental sense.
Big-box stores have their place in a city (even Paris, France has Carrefour Hypermarkets around town). It's just a matter of WHERE that place should be.
Tablemtn, you keep bringing up the RiteAid store, and while I agree with you that it is a huge, ugly building that is understocked, I would imagine that RiteAid corporate wouldn't keep the store open if it was losing money. Ninth Street is lacking character, but nearly every city has a tacky commercial strip. If you want to find Corvallis's character you really do have to go downtown.
Where would I buy a window air conditioner? My first choice would be Costco in Albany because of price and their generous return policy. Now that Corvallis has a Home Depot I'd probably give them a look, but I'm generally dissatisfied with the service and selection there. But before I made any purchase I would also check out the prices at Stover Evey & Jackson which is a local appliance store. I purchased a range hood from them and they beat every price I saw, including Home Depot and online stores.
I have my complaints about Corvallis, but I seem to do fine on the shopping front, and I am a homeowner with small children so I do have shopping needs. Just not at WalMart! I think in my entire life I've not spent more than $10 total there.
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
The big problem is that there is no room for everyone to have an acre of land. Plus, an acre of land is economically worthless. It doesn't produce anything. Agriculture is still the economic engine that keeps Oregon running. Pile up all the high tech companies in the state, Intel, Tek, Floating Point, etc., and they add up to less than half the economic value of agriculture. If you turn all the land into ranchettes, you destroy the economic base for the whole state.
There are severe consequences to unplanned growth, and you can't expect developers to act responsibly in any way. All you have to do is go across the border to Boise to see the consequences of letting developers do anything they want. Good luck finding your idyllic country acreage there. It would quickly get surrounded by housing developments, and you would find yourself driving ten miles through city traffic to get to your shopping.
The big problem is that there is no room for everyone to have an acre of land. Plus, an acre of land is economically worthless. It doesn't produce anything. Agriculture is still the economic engine that keeps Oregon running. Pile up all the high tech companies in the state, Intel, Tek, Floating Point, etc., and they add up to less than half the economic value of agriculture. If you turn all the land into ranchettes, you destroy the economic base for the whole state.
There are severe consequences to unplanned growth, and you can't expect developers to act responsibly in any way. All you have to do is go across the border to Boise to see the consequences of letting developers do anything they want. Good luck finding your idyllic country acreage there. It would quickly get surrounded by housing developments, and you would find yourself driving ten miles through city traffic to get to your shopping.
I don't agree that there is not enough land. There is plenty of ground, it is just not zoned properly or owned by the Government 60% or more.
Sure we need farm land, and I'm not suggesting turning ALL the farmland into ranchettes. Most of our farm land is for wheat, and hay, rye, canola, and that's mostly in the east.
Timber use to be our greatest resource, until it came to a screaching halt. Owl reference intended. We also use to have a great fishing industry, until it was so poorly regulated that it brought on mass culling.
Enviro-not-sees are regretting their oppressions ever since the libraries and other services have been cut, due to the revenue going the way of the dinosaurs. To bad balance wasn't on the agenda.
As a developer, I can tell you I can't do what ever I want, in fact the gov. depts. are so far up your tail, they think they own it, and pay the taxes on it. Personal property rights barely exist here. Developers are the best ones to know how a property is marketable after all it is their risk and life on the line, if the house, property or community isn't marketable then they won't last, whereas the gov't. that gets its paycheck from what the developers create could care less about the marketability of a project.
The cities force developers into the tract home densities that exist today, I have acreage that I would prefer to make one acre lots, and the city codes force 5 homes per acre, so I refuse to develop it until they allow it, fortunately they need a water tower for future development and I won't give the land to them until they allow larger lots with nicer homesites and privacy.
Counties are the opposite and don't allow 1 acre lots, its 2 1/2 acre min, with most of them 5 acres- which leaves 4 potential homeowners unable live there.
The customer wants space, but not a ranch to take care of. On one acre you can get a well and septic placed, have a shop and a place for RV, boat or whatever hobby you may have. This is not the America the founding fathers invisioned. Oregon is more like Eastern Europe 20 yrs. ago. when it comes to socialist government control.
One acre is fine, until the septic system fails and needs to be replaced. Then you find out that the neighbor's well is within 100' of your alternate drain field location. There are failing septic systems all over rural Oregon, polluting the ground waters, because somebody thought 1 acre subdivisions were a good idea.
There is still plenty of marginal land to develop on. If land is zoned prime agricultural land, that's the way it needs to stay. Nobody believes that developers have any interest in anything but their bank account. Agricultural land in Eastern Oregon is very marginal compared to land in the Willamette Valley. The remaining productive land in Eastern and Southern Oregon needs to remain undeveloped. Plunk your houses on rocky hillsides, call it view property, and charge a premium.
One acre is fine, until the septic system fails and needs to be replaced. Then you find out that the neighbor's well is within 100' of your alternate drain field location. There are failing septic systems all over rural Oregon, polluting the ground waters, because somebody thought 1 acre subdivisions were a good idea.
There is still plenty of marginal land to develop on. If land is zoned prime agricultural land, that's the way it needs to stay. Nobody believes that developers have any interest in anything but their bank account. Agricultural land in Eastern Oregon is very marginal compared to land in the Willamette Valley. The remaining productive land in Eastern and Southern Oregon needs to remain undeveloped. Plunk your houses on rocky hillsides, call it view property, and charge a premium.
I've developed 1/2 acre sites with repair areas. There are variances of 50-75' allowed with proper soil conditions.
Failing septics are due to age, and the inability of the state to force a repair on an existing dwelling when finances are an issue.
There is some prime soil in eastern Oregon.
Bend is a good example of hillside rocky terrain homesites. They have done a fantastic job of meeting the demand for upscale homes and amenities.
You must not know too many developers. ALL of the ones I know, contribute millions of dollars to their communities, while sacraficing family time and personal time. Most developers are not Donald Trump, and have incredible values. They live and believe in improving the communities that they live in.
The ultra successful could have retired long ago, but continue out of a love for their community.
In Grants Pass we would not have Sports parks, Boys and Girls club, Skate parks, downtown rejuvination, Hospitals, Police depts. Theatre programs, Schools or anyother infrastructure without developers and builders.
The thanks they get is a bunch of weak criticisms, and jealous judgements, due to the fact that they work hard and some make alot of money.
Its not the freaking lottery Larry, Have you ever developed anything in your whole life? It takes a lot of hard work, vision, effort, risk, and frankly balls to hang out there to be cut off by ignorance.
thanks for your understanding.
freedom
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
