Wall property proposal----------------

Since TOL first saw this proposal there have been many significant changes.
This is no longer a horse community within the ALR (which was dubious to
start with) but a residential community in the middle of the ALR. So there
is no obligation for TOL to rezone this property and there are many, many
very good reasons to reject rezoning.

1) Wall proposal violates the Rural Plan. This property is RU-3 so 20
acre minimum property size.
2) Wall proposal violates the Metro Regional Growth Strategy. Does TOL
really want to be the first to violate the RGS after just approving it last
year? The negative publicity this would bring especially given that this is
such a weak proposal would be very bad for the image of TOL.
3) This area needs a neighbourhood plan with proper involvement of the
community before any rezoning is contemplated. .
4) Wall property would be spot zoning of the worst kind. Spot zoning
is not allowed by communities and regions that want proper planning and want
to protect the wallets of their taxpayers.
5) The so called "University District" needs proper community input
and, in any case, connecting the Wall property to a University District is a
very tenuous argument.
6) Totally inadequate notice to the community, the ALC and Metro. By
having first and second reading during the election then pushing this matter
to public hearing in early January it makes one wonder if TOL has something
to hide.
7) Wall proposal would open up TOL to another legal debacle in the
floodplain as development on the property would cause more flooding
downstream (TOL standards do not prevent increased volume downstream).
Farmers have put TOL on notice many times that they would pursue upstream
development with legal action.
8) Approving this rezoning would lead to tremendous pressure on the ALR
and on the Rural Plan with the certainty that many properties will similarly
propose spot zoning.
9) Do we really want to lose the rural character of TOL by going down
this road? Do we want to cause traffic issues etc. etc. all through the
ALR?
Nb. The residents have made it clear that traffic problems will get
worse by bringing residential development to a rural area. A light at 72nd
may be needed but putting a light so close to a freeway interchange has
already been shown by the 200th Street interchange debacle to create many
problems.
.

Endowment fund is a "pig in a poke" (see previous E-mail). To summarize:
1) TOL engineering studies show that the only way to make the floodplain
suitable for anything but hay is to bypass it.
2) Putting in another screw pump and/or dredging will not help
significantly with drainage.
3) Wall is contributing very little to this fund ($1 million of the $2
million total is a small cost of business for 65 lots).
4) The fund Is still not actually in place ($1 million is still not
arranged).
4) However if there ends up being $2 million floating around looking for
projects that are not there we will bring back the controversy and
politicking in the floodplain that has wasted hundreds of hours of volunteer
and staff time.
5) As such the endowment fund is more likely to lead to another legal suit
(as happened the last time we tried to interfere with the floodplain in
1995) than to lead to anything positive.

I don't think the ALC is happy with the changes to this project over the
last few years. I know Metro is not happy with it. The community is very
unhappy with it (especially FLCA and SRES).

You can stop this mess by refusing zoning.

Doug McFee
Director, Salmon River Enhancement Society