FEATURE ARTICLES Memo Calendar Memo Pad Business Memos Loaves & Fishes Letters Home
New class coming to school
PBA awards scholarships
Composting plant plan trashed at neighborhood meeting
A look back at Mid-county Memo July 1987
City’s first Measure 37 case denied
Inaugural SnowCap garage sale a hit

About the MEMO
MEMO Archives
MEMO Advertising
MEMO Country (Map)
MEMO Web Neighbors
MEMO Staff

© 2005 Mid-county MEMO
Terms & Conditions
City’s first Measure 37 case denied

LEE PERLMAN
THE MID-COUNTY MEMO

Editor’s note: The following are Gateway and Parkrose neighborhood news briefs from veteran beat reporter Lee Perlman.

In July’s compendium, Perlman reports on the outcome of Portland’s first Measure 37 case, an update on the continuing 122nd and 102nd Avenue studies, news about Senn’s Dairy Park in Parkrose, and the election of a new chair of the Gateway urban renewal Program Advisory Committee. Also included in Perlman’s July report is the date set for groundbreaking ceremonies for the new Oregon Clinic headquarters building in the Gateway Transit Center. For some fun news, the esteemed Rossi family presents its annual Barn Bash, a fundraiser for Parkrose Youth activities fund disguised as a party.

City Council denies first Measure 37 claim
The Portland City Council last month reacted to their first Ballot Measure 37 claimant by sending her away empty-handed. Council unanimously agreed with the staff report that Ruth Pruitt and her brother Henry Moshberger did not officially own their four-acre property at 14333 N.E. Whitaker St. in the Argay neighborhood until after an environmental overlay limiting use of the land was in effect. Thus, she has no basis for her claim.

Measure 37, passed by state voters last year, decrees that if a government jurisdiction passes laws that decrease the value of a property by restricting its use, the government must either waive the regulations in question or compensate the owner for the loss of the property. The law applies to owners who owned the property in question, or whose family owned it, prior to the regulations taking effect.

The last two words of the last paragraph are the basis of Pruitt’s claim. Both the passage of the environmental overlays and the sale of the property occurred at roughly the same time, and both took some time to happen as such processes do. However, Pruitt argued, in her cases the overlays didn’t take effect until December 17, 1993, 30 days after they were adopted, and by that time she had purchased the property. Or did she? It was pointed out that the sale officially became final the same day. Hannah Kuhn of mayor Tom Potter’s staff said that Measure 37 provides relief to property owners or families who owned land prior to “the day of enactment” of laws restricting their use.

“The measure doesn’t provide a definition of that,” she said. City attorney Catherine Beaumont said that for legal purposes, city statutes are presumed to take effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 30th day after they were passed.

Pruitt herself concede that the argument was “a matter of substance over form.” The real point, she said, was “When you take someone’s property, that’s really wrong. In fact, it’s theft. Without even asking.” In her case, she said, it leaves her with just half an acre of useable land, not enough for the storage facility she intended.

Saying she had just discovered the date issue, she asked for a 30-day delay to consult an attorney.

Commissioner Randy Leonard strongly opposed this. “This is new territory,” he said. “I’m very uncomfortable making exceptions and extensions for this case. Even if her point is correct, the law went into effect in the early hours of the morning.”

Three veteran community activists spoke in favor of the city’s action. In the early 1990s Wilkes Community Group appealed the Columbia South Shore Resources Management Plan to the Land use Board of Appeals because they felt that a 50-foot setback was needed along the slough. Longtime leader Alice Blatt, who played a key part in the case, said that the area contains an important wildlife corridor, recreation resources, and the city’s drinking wells. “It’s important to us,” she said.

Bonny McKnight of Russell neighborhood said, “There is public value in each piece of private property.” This value “should be assessed in the context of its surroundings rather than in isolation,” she said.

Linda Robinson of Hazelwood added, “It’s really important that areas under protection remain protected.” In mid-June Pruitt told the Memo that she intended to take the issue to court.

122nd Avenue Study
At its latest public open house in June, and in conversations since, the 122nd Avenue Station Area Study continued to zero in on a middle course.

It would not make all auto dealerships along Northeast and Southeast 122nd Avenue adhere to strict pedestrian standards that don’t allow cars to be displayed outside. Neither would they just let the Ron Tonkin Auto Dealership nor other car dealers take over the street.

As explained by project manager Barry Manning and consultant Tim Smith, the project team is proposing to let the dealerships have more leeway for new developments along the avenue. At designated “nodes” such as East Burnside, Northeast Glisan and Southeast Stark Street, they will retain stricter standards.

“We know there are auto dealers in the nodes,” Smith said. “If they choose to stay they’re free to stay. But if the current use leaves, we want a policy in place.” In between the nodes, he said, “We have ideas about how you can have a pedestrian-friendly street space and exterior display.” A suggested way would be to have the display behind a landscaped buffer. “Right now vehicles are right up to a very narrow sidewalk,” Manning said. In the discussion that followed Unique Styles Hair Salon co-owner Barry Barber, voiced concerns about restrictions on dealerships. “We don’t want to drive out the largest business in Oregon,” he said. “But we also don’t want them to run over the neighborhood,” Hazelwood Neighborhood Association’s Land Use Chairwoman Linda Robinson replied. Robinson also questioned some of the regulations. “Must we have cutout displays?” she asked, relating to ground floor window requirements. “It’s a silly requirement that you be allowed to see inside a building whether there’s something to see or not.”


>> continued
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | About the MEMO
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home