Guest Post

Folks I turn this over to another concerned citizen. this was received in my e-mail and is being reprinted here at their request.... Robin

WHY I OPPOSE THE CANNERY PUD PROJECT AS PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL

I have been asked why I joined Jim and Susan Claus to try to stop the proposed cannery development at LUBA. Initially my position was simple. Something was wrong with the project, it just didn't smell right. I am a basic Sherwoodite of 37+ years. I like the town and my neighborhood. I believe I am an independent who can be reasoned with but I can't be bullied. On first investigation on the Capstone/City “Cannery Project” 6.5 acres as proposed made no sense. You cannot put in 101 apartment units with 2/3 of a parking space per unit and not overburden the surrounding neighborhood areas. OVER PARKING is a recipe for lowering land values for the apartment house and the adjacent homes. This lack of parking was the tip of the iceberg so to speak. The citizens knew that and so did the Planning Commission as the hearings progressed. They agreed to change the design from initial the City/Capstone layout, asked for more traffic studies and some other items and sent their recommendations to City Council.



Less than three days before the city council meeting, the city recorder, Sylvia Murphy, released the 2008 city contracts -- never shown to the Planning Commission-- that granted all the land use zoning exceptions on an option to purchase to Capstone. City Manager Jim Patterson had signed that contract with Capstone on September 3, 2008. Even though a public hearing was required on that zoning, Jim Patterson and the Council had signed the contract selling the zoning at an extremely low price-- about 25% or less, than what apartment zoning was selling for at the time! The City, (the citizens!) was responsible for the infrastructure also. Wowzer…. And Capstone did not have to pay any payments or interest on the property for five years after the completion of the apartments, if the units were not 95% occupied. Not only was the city selling land at a ridiculous low price, we were coming up with a project that could and would harm the neighborhood.



Another problem I have with the project is that the City will spend close to $15,000,000 to buy the land and build the infrastructure. This part of the project is non-taxable and will never return a dime. Capstone will build at most $15 M of assessed value of property. The city will pay 4% interest for the money and must pay the loan back in 20 years. Capstone will only pay back 1.5% in the form of annual taxes. The difference of the interest alone each year is about $500,000 annually. You could do a more sophisticated analysis on the lost revenues and it is actually worse than $500,000 annually. However, there is no point going there.



Let me summarize my objections to the Cannery project. The City was committed to this zoning by contract without a legally required public hearing in 2008. As Lori Randel called it, all the public hearings were a sham. The contract price on the land is a significantly less than the value that should have been placed on it. Capstone and the city's development WILL negatively impact the neighborhood and the old Town district. In addition to the $15M we will spend in infrastructure costs up front, we will spend another $500,000 annually more than comes back in taxes every year while Capstone enjoys no liability, and a BIG consulting fee from the city coffers and most all of the upside in the project. In my opinion, it is bad politics, bad economic development, and most of all bad public policy. It's not too late to just say "No" to a plan that will haunt our downtown for generations.



Sanford Rome,

Sherwood