« Support fairness. Stop the Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District. | Main | Great idea: Salem could have a local online paper »

May 24, 2018

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

As I understand it, Lone Oak Road and the needed bridge over the creek are Private, i.e would be privately owned and maintained. They are needed as a second exit from the area, in case of an emergency. However I oppose the use of public SDC's systems development charges to fund private roads and bridges. Each new dwelling in the City pays $15,000 in SDC's. These funds are accumulated for construction of public infrastructure, roads and utilities, and are not for funding private bridges that a private developer has successfully and cleverly avoided paying for, even though it was a condition of subdivision and development approval. Also, I disagree that the "golf course development" should be exempt. If it happens, then those lots need to fund the bridge. Actually, the golf course is a vital component in our storm water control, so really should be left as undeveloped open space, and configured as a storm water control area. Leave our SDC's alone. They are for public improvements, not to subsidize clever big developers who would rather not pay for their responsibilities like constructing the required access.

I live in Creekside, and am opposed to the course being developed. I am not a golfer nor belong to The Club, but am opposed for reasons stated by others (flooding, traffic, loss of green space). Creekside is involved in a lawsuit to keep it a golf course. We hope to prevail in appellate court….and/or perhaps, before, the owner may not have wanted to contend with the expenses of a long legal battle. However, I think the Council creating a Reimbursement District now ups the ante for the owner to take this legal battle all the way. The owner no longer would be on the hook to pay for road and bridge work, as he should, but now could (by dividing the course into homes) “cost shift” his responsibility to individual lot owner home builders. Appears the Council is setting up a scenario that may reward one side of this legal issue. I am not an expert on these issues, so perhaps have it all wrong. If so, someone please educate me. Thanks.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Become a Fan