STEVE LAW
Statesman Journal
March 25, 2007
The llamas and filbert trees are gone near West Salem High School, to be replaced by 700 new homes.
Lisa Nair scans those buildable lots in her neighborhood and worries what they portend for her daughter's school. "You see these homes going in, and there's no school being built to provide classrooms for these kids," she said.
Nair and other West Salem parents have one remedy: put a fee on every new home going in.
Salem and other cities and counties across Oregon levy "system development charges" on new homes and other construction to pay for roads, parks, sewers and water systems that serve the new homes. But state law bans local governments from charging development fees for schools, in part because of the lobbying clout of the home-building industry.
In high-growth areas such as West Salem and South Salem, many residents think that's unfair, especially as they see droves of newcomers cause crowding in neighborhood schools.
Senate Bill 366, introduced this session and referred to the Finance and Revenue Committee, would allow school districts to set an impact fee, or system development charge, on new homes or lots. It does not require that fees be set or say how much they would be.
It's crucial to site schools close to where students live, said Heitsch, a co-leader of the school district's Facilities Task Force. More parents can attend teacher conferences. Students can attend after-school activities and devote more time to homework instead of riding buses. The school becomes a stronger center of community life.
Development fees could give school districts the financial means to set aside land, rather than wait for voters to OK a bond measure, Heitsch said.
Senate Bill 366 would require that development fees be spent only to meet the demands of new growth. The money could not be spent merely to replace an aging facility.
Homebuilders and allied industry groups have long opposed school development fees because they raise the price of a new house or cut into their profits.
Salem already charges nearly $12,000 per house for development fees. So far this year, the average West Salem home is selling for $293,550, according to the Willamette Valley Multiple Listing Service. In South Salem, it's $323,339.
Homebuilders are quick to point out that development fees would cover only about 25 percent of the cost of a new school, by some estimates. And some school officials worry that voters will be less prone to support school bond measures if there are school development fees, figuring that those should cover the costs.
Bond measures are the traditional way that school districts pay for new classrooms, but they've gotten much tougher to pass in elections since Oregon voters approved the Measure 47 property tax initiative in 1996.
Eleven other states allow development fees for schools, and eight other states have an alternative mechanism, Hepper said. The group senses that the time is ripe to erase Oregon's ban on school development fees, with so many bond measures going down and Democrats back in control of the Legislature.
Berger said local communities should "step up" and pay for school construction, rather than trying to raise the price of homes by tacking on more development fees. Loosening the double-majority requirement will enable local taxpayers to do more of their share, she said.
Although legislative committees have begun hearings on development fees, the real action is going on behind the scenes in negotiations with homebuilders, Stand for Children and other forces.
Hepper argues that development fees could help the housing industry and parents.
"The benefit for both," he said, "is you buy a house and sell a house in a school district that has good schools."
slaw@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6615
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Americans Want to See All Illegal Immigrants Deported
Editorial Page
March 28, 2007
In your "Winners and Losers" section (March 16), one comment stood out to me. It questions our government's immigration priority, suggesting that we should deport illegal aliens first who are in prison, then move on to people who pose no threat -- defined as those who have no criminal record.
Whoever made this statement is ignorant of our immigration policies. We already consistently deport aliens after they have served their time. Actually we should insist their home country require them to serve out the remainder of their time or bill their country of origin for the cost of incarceration.
Currently, Homeland Security is focusing with interior enforcement on three classes of illegal aliens beyond those not already incarcerated. One, those who have a previous deportation order and have not complied; two, those who are criminal aliens; and three, the most egregious workplace offenders, where whole businesses are given over to criminal activity.
Along the way, Immigration and Customs Enforcement comes across illegal aliens who have no arrest warrant or have committed no other known crime. They still are obligated to apprehend them, and the American people are wanting this done at least until we get control over this problem.
-- Clark T. Seeley, Woodburn
March 28, 2007
In your "Winners and Losers" section (March 16), one comment stood out to me. It questions our government's immigration priority, suggesting that we should deport illegal aliens first who are in prison, then move on to people who pose no threat -- defined as those who have no criminal record.
Whoever made this statement is ignorant of our immigration policies. We already consistently deport aliens after they have served their time. Actually we should insist their home country require them to serve out the remainder of their time or bill their country of origin for the cost of incarceration.
Currently, Homeland Security is focusing with interior enforcement on three classes of illegal aliens beyond those not already incarcerated. One, those who have a previous deportation order and have not complied; two, those who are criminal aliens; and three, the most egregious workplace offenders, where whole businesses are given over to criminal activity.
Along the way, Immigration and Customs Enforcement comes across illegal aliens who have no arrest warrant or have committed no other known crime. They still are obligated to apprehend them, and the American people are wanting this done at least until we get control over this problem.
-- Clark T. Seeley, Woodburn
Salem-Based Sunwest Faces Suit by Residents
MICHAEL ROSE
Statesman Journal
March 29, 2007
Residents of a Sheridan assisted living facility have hauled Sunwest Management Inc. into court, accusing the Salem senior housing manager of charging for services it doesn’t provide.
The litigation threatens Sunwest with a class-action lawsuit, which could potentially have several thousand plaintiffs. Fifty residential facilities in Oregon operated by Sunwest, including those in Keizer, Stayton, Monmouth, and Woodburn, are named in a lawsuit filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court.
At the heart of the dispute: allegations that Sunwest’s standard admission agreement misled residents about the number of staff available to provide daily care, such as help with medication.
Sunwest understaffed assisted living homes and “made a considered decision to promote profit at the expense of their contractual and legal obligations to residents,” according to the lawsuit.
Sunwest issued a statement calling the lawsuit “frivolous and inaccurate.”
The lawsuit demands that Sunwest stop the alleged unlawful trade practices. It seeks an unspecified amount of restitution, attorney fees, and other relief from the court.
The lawsuit needs to be certified as a class action before it advances.
The cost to live in the Sunwest facility starts at about $1,500 a month, the attorney said.
While residents are sometimes encouraged to pay for more services, the facility doesn’t add more or better trained staff to provide additional care, Stebner said.
In court papers, the plaintiffs’ allege staff ratios described in admission agreements counted all staff members “even those who were not employed to or qualified to act as caregivers.”
Sunwest manages retirement, assisted living and memory-care communities. The senior housing owner and operator has about 180 facilities nationwide. Among the many Sunwest facilities named in the lawsuit suit:
In January, Sunwest settled three lawsuits that accused it of ignoring staffing problems at its Meadowlark Assisted Living facility in Yreka, Calif. The California suits alleged staffing issues contributed to residents suffering serious, and sometimes, fatal injuries from falls. Terms prevented attorneys from discussing details of the settlements.
Stebner, the same attorney who filed the recent lawsuit in Oregon, also represented families in the Meadowlark cases.
mrose@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6657
Statesman Journal
March 29, 2007
Residents of a Sheridan assisted living facility have hauled Sunwest Management Inc. into court, accusing the Salem senior housing manager of charging for services it doesn’t provide.
The litigation threatens Sunwest with a class-action lawsuit, which could potentially have several thousand plaintiffs. Fifty residential facilities in Oregon operated by Sunwest, including those in Keizer, Stayton, Monmouth, and Woodburn, are named in a lawsuit filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court.
At the heart of the dispute: allegations that Sunwest’s standard admission agreement misled residents about the number of staff available to provide daily care, such as help with medication.
Sunwest understaffed assisted living homes and “made a considered decision to promote profit at the expense of their contractual and legal obligations to residents,” according to the lawsuit.
Sunwest issued a statement calling the lawsuit “frivolous and inaccurate.”
The lawsuit demands that Sunwest stop the alleged unlawful trade practices. It seeks an unspecified amount of restitution, attorney fees, and other relief from the court.
The lawsuit needs to be certified as a class action before it advances.
The cost to live in the Sunwest facility starts at about $1,500 a month, the attorney said.
While residents are sometimes encouraged to pay for more services, the facility doesn’t add more or better trained staff to provide additional care, Stebner said.
In court papers, the plaintiffs’ allege staff ratios described in admission agreements counted all staff members “even those who were not employed to or qualified to act as caregivers.”
Sunwest manages retirement, assisted living and memory-care communities. The senior housing owner and operator has about 180 facilities nationwide. Among the many Sunwest facilities named in the lawsuit suit:
In January, Sunwest settled three lawsuits that accused it of ignoring staffing problems at its Meadowlark Assisted Living facility in Yreka, Calif. The California suits alleged staffing issues contributed to residents suffering serious, and sometimes, fatal injuries from falls. Terms prevented attorneys from discussing details of the settlements.
Stebner, the same attorney who filed the recent lawsuit in Oregon, also represented families in the Meadowlark cases.
mrose@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6657
Some Speak Against New Measure 37 Compromise
PETER WONG
Statesman Journal
March 31, 2007
When it comes to the Legislature's latest plan to fix flaws in Oregon's land-use compensation law, both sides in the controversy over a proposed subdivision in the hills south of Salem are agreed.
They don't like it.
The plan -- which two lawmakers and a deputy chief of staff to Gov. Ted Kulongoski disclosed Thursday night -- would clear the way for smaller developments but limit or bar big ones.
The law, which voters passed as Measure 37 in 2004, requires government either to pay landowners or waive rules when those rules result in reduced property values. Thousands of claims were filed before a Dec. 5 deadline, and landowners can go to court to seek compensation if governments cannot resolve them within six months.
The latest plan still has to be put in the form of a bill by the committee before it goes to votes in each chamber.
It would clear the way for pre-1994 landowners to proceed with houses on up to three sites, a maximum of three on one open site, and guarantee most claimants at least one site.
Some landowners could develop up to 10 sites, and a maximum of 30 homes, if they can demonstrate their property-value losses, adjusted for previous tax breaks.
"Actually, I think it's worse than the governor's original proposal in some ways," Hines said. "We are not real happy with the idea of 10 sites being allowed because it's still going to create a ring of subdivisions around us.
Under either option, development would be limited or barred on high-value farmland and in areas with limited groundwater supplies.
High-value farmland is defined under a 1993 law by soil quality and agricultural production. Macpherson said it's intended to protect Oregon's best farmland in the Willamette and Hood River valleys, including vineyards and orchards.
Laack said those conditions in the latest plan amount to a pretext for government to do nothing for landowners filing claims.
pwong@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6745
Statesman Journal
March 31, 2007
When it comes to the Legislature's latest plan to fix flaws in Oregon's land-use compensation law, both sides in the controversy over a proposed subdivision in the hills south of Salem are agreed.
They don't like it.
The plan -- which two lawmakers and a deputy chief of staff to Gov. Ted Kulongoski disclosed Thursday night -- would clear the way for smaller developments but limit or bar big ones.
The law, which voters passed as Measure 37 in 2004, requires government either to pay landowners or waive rules when those rules result in reduced property values. Thousands of claims were filed before a Dec. 5 deadline, and landowners can go to court to seek compensation if governments cannot resolve them within six months.
The latest plan still has to be put in the form of a bill by the committee before it goes to votes in each chamber.
It would clear the way for pre-1994 landowners to proceed with houses on up to three sites, a maximum of three on one open site, and guarantee most claimants at least one site.
Some landowners could develop up to 10 sites, and a maximum of 30 homes, if they can demonstrate their property-value losses, adjusted for previous tax breaks.
"Actually, I think it's worse than the governor's original proposal in some ways," Hines said. "We are not real happy with the idea of 10 sites being allowed because it's still going to create a ring of subdivisions around us.
Under either option, development would be limited or barred on high-value farmland and in areas with limited groundwater supplies.
High-value farmland is defined under a 1993 law by soil quality and agricultural production. Macpherson said it's intended to protect Oregon's best farmland in the Willamette and Hood River valleys, including vineyards and orchards.
Laack said those conditions in the latest plan amount to a pretext for government to do nothing for landowners filing claims.
pwong@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6745
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Summary of News Events this Week by Mark Young
Most Recommended Stories
Sun. March 18, 2007
1. Powwow brings past to present
2. Oregon needs U.S. to reform immigration
3. Winthrop could present major challenge for Ducks
4. 781 vehicles were stolen in Salem in 2006
5. Robinson: What Barack Obama has to tell us
6. Libby verdict part of partisan witch hunt, 'process crime'
To view these articles link onto the Statesman Journal link provided in this Blog.
The issue of deporting foreign-born criminals should be a priority for the U.S. immigration service. With the number of criminal immigrants in the Oregon penal system between 6 and 8 percent of the total prison population this burden on the taxpaying citizens of Oregon is unwarranted. The financial resources spent on detaining these individuals could be better spent elsewhere! However, caution should be used that innocent immigrants are not caught up in this action. As stated in this article U.S. born citizens are more likely to commit crimes than foreign born citizens by a wide margin. The goods and services that migrant workers provide
to Oregon and the U.S. in general, are enormous and help to keep our economy working. Too often immigrants are not given the proper credit for their contributions to our society. It is the cultural diversity of America that remains as one of our strongest heritages.
Sociology 348:
Two urban issues that I will cover this semester are urban/suburban planning and socially excluded groups. In particular, how federal and state policies affect a cities development(eminent domain, zoning, etc.)by controlling any future construction. As to socially excluded groups, I will report on how these groups (homeless, ethnic minorities, disaffected youth, etc.) are affected by legislation and various economic factors(employment, immigration status, etc.) within our society.
Sun. March 18, 2007
1. Powwow brings past to present
2. Oregon needs U.S. to reform immigration
3. Winthrop could present major challenge for Ducks
4. 781 vehicles were stolen in Salem in 2006
5. Robinson: What Barack Obama has to tell us
6. Libby verdict part of partisan witch hunt, 'process crime'
To view these articles link onto the Statesman Journal link provided in this Blog.
The issue of deporting foreign-born criminals should be a priority for the U.S. immigration service. With the number of criminal immigrants in the Oregon penal system between 6 and 8 percent of the total prison population this burden on the taxpaying citizens of Oregon is unwarranted. The financial resources spent on detaining these individuals could be better spent elsewhere! However, caution should be used that innocent immigrants are not caught up in this action. As stated in this article U.S. born citizens are more likely to commit crimes than foreign born citizens by a wide margin. The goods and services that migrant workers provide
to Oregon and the U.S. in general, are enormous and help to keep our economy working. Too often immigrants are not given the proper credit for their contributions to our society. It is the cultural diversity of America that remains as one of our strongest heritages.
Sociology 348:
Two urban issues that I will cover this semester are urban/suburban planning and socially excluded groups. In particular, how federal and state policies affect a cities development(eminent domain, zoning, etc.)by controlling any future construction. As to socially excluded groups, I will report on how these groups (homeless, ethnic minorities, disaffected youth, etc.) are affected by legislation and various economic factors(employment, immigration status, etc.) within our society.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Deportation Efforts Snare More Noncriminals
THELMA GUERRERO
Statesman Journal
March 15, 2007
Rogelio Corona-Cuevas, a Mexican national, killed two members of a family in a 2003 drunken-driving collision north of Salem. Despite the illegal immigrant's five-year-long record of drunken driving and probation violations, he was never sent back to his home country.
Carlos Bernard Dennis, a Jamaican, broke into a Salem apartment, robbed the home and cut the occupant with a knife. The undocumented immigrant previously had been detained for driving with a suspended license and leaving the scene of an accident. He slipped through the cracks, however, remaining in the United States and committing another crime.
Deporting foreign-born criminals is supposed to be a priority for the U.S. immigration system, second only to national security.
However, a review of recent data shows that some criminal aliens have remained in the United States even after they have completed their sentences, while taxpayer money is used to nab people who are in the country illegally but who have no criminal record.
In the past 10 years, the number of criminal aliens doing time in Oregon prisons has fluctuated between 6 percent and 8 percent of the total prison population.
The numbers do not sit well with critics who say that keeping foreign-born criminals locked up in the state's prisons burdens taxpayers with the millions of dollars it costs to house them.
Some people want the heat turned up on the federal government to deport these inmates as soon as they walk out of prison doors.
Border-control advocates say that would help reduce the number of people who enter the country illegally and would curb the number of repeat offenders.
"It would send the message that this kind of behavior is not acceptable," said Salem resident Ken Evans, a government-relations specialist and former lobbyist.
Immigrant-rights advocates counter by pointing out that U.S.-born people commit more crimes than immigrants.
A 2006 Harvard University study supports their position, concluding that immigrants, both legal and illegal, are 45 percent less likely than Americans to commit crimes.
Paying for inmates
On Jan. 1, the total inmate population in the state's 13 prisons was 13,292, according to the Oregon Department of Corrections.
Foreign-born aliens accounted for 1,007, or about 8 percent, of the total prison population. Eighty percent of those were Mexican citizens. Some are repeat offenders.
Last year, the corrections department charged the federal government $32.5 million, the state's cost to house 1,722 foreign-born criminals lodged in state prisons between July 2004 and June 2005.
As of this week, Oregon's 2006 federal reimbursement had not been received or determined, DOC officials said.
Through its State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP, the federal government reimburses state and local governments the cost to keep undocumented criminals locked up. But federal reimbursement often comes up short, leaving states and counties to foot the full bill.
A recent report by the U.S. Department of Justice found that states with high immigrant populations typically receive only 25 percent of the cost to house criminal aliens in prisons. States with smaller immigrant populations such as Oregon receive less than that amount.
Evans offered a possible solution to the problem.
"We should have the inmates' countries of origin pay for their incarceration," he said.
Oregon rules
Oregon state law prohibits law enforcement officials from checking the immigration status of a person arrested for a crime, resulting in law enforcement officials' not turning over suspected illegal immigrants to immigration agents.
Meanwhile, the state Department of Corrections has the task of holding criminal aliens in prison.
That helps ensure "that the appropriate punishment given by an Oregon judge to individuals deemed as criminal aliens is served to completion," said DOC director Max Williams.
Statesman Journal
March 15, 2007
Rogelio Corona-Cuevas, a Mexican national, killed two members of a family in a 2003 drunken-driving collision north of Salem. Despite the illegal immigrant's five-year-long record of drunken driving and probation violations, he was never sent back to his home country.
Carlos Bernard Dennis, a Jamaican, broke into a Salem apartment, robbed the home and cut the occupant with a knife. The undocumented immigrant previously had been detained for driving with a suspended license and leaving the scene of an accident. He slipped through the cracks, however, remaining in the United States and committing another crime.
Deporting foreign-born criminals is supposed to be a priority for the U.S. immigration system, second only to national security.
However, a review of recent data shows that some criminal aliens have remained in the United States even after they have completed their sentences, while taxpayer money is used to nab people who are in the country illegally but who have no criminal record.
In the past 10 years, the number of criminal aliens doing time in Oregon prisons has fluctuated between 6 percent and 8 percent of the total prison population.
The numbers do not sit well with critics who say that keeping foreign-born criminals locked up in the state's prisons burdens taxpayers with the millions of dollars it costs to house them.
Some people want the heat turned up on the federal government to deport these inmates as soon as they walk out of prison doors.
Border-control advocates say that would help reduce the number of people who enter the country illegally and would curb the number of repeat offenders.
"It would send the message that this kind of behavior is not acceptable," said Salem resident Ken Evans, a government-relations specialist and former lobbyist.
Immigrant-rights advocates counter by pointing out that U.S.-born people commit more crimes than immigrants.
A 2006 Harvard University study supports their position, concluding that immigrants, both legal and illegal, are 45 percent less likely than Americans to commit crimes.
Paying for inmates
On Jan. 1, the total inmate population in the state's 13 prisons was 13,292, according to the Oregon Department of Corrections.
Foreign-born aliens accounted for 1,007, or about 8 percent, of the total prison population. Eighty percent of those were Mexican citizens. Some are repeat offenders.
Last year, the corrections department charged the federal government $32.5 million, the state's cost to house 1,722 foreign-born criminals lodged in state prisons between July 2004 and June 2005.
As of this week, Oregon's 2006 federal reimbursement had not been received or determined, DOC officials said.
Through its State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP, the federal government reimburses state and local governments the cost to keep undocumented criminals locked up. But federal reimbursement often comes up short, leaving states and counties to foot the full bill.
A recent report by the U.S. Department of Justice found that states with high immigrant populations typically receive only 25 percent of the cost to house criminal aliens in prisons. States with smaller immigrant populations such as Oregon receive less than that amount.
Evans offered a possible solution to the problem.
"We should have the inmates' countries of origin pay for their incarceration," he said.
Oregon rules
Oregon state law prohibits law enforcement officials from checking the immigration status of a person arrested for a crime, resulting in law enforcement officials' not turning over suspected illegal immigrants to immigration agents.
Meanwhile, the state Department of Corrections has the task of holding criminal aliens in prison.
That helps ensure "that the appropriate punishment given by an Oregon judge to individuals deemed as criminal aliens is served to completion," said DOC director Max Williams.
Developer, Neighbors Appeal Land-Use Ruling
BETH CASPER
Statesman Journal
March 17, 2007
Property owners with approval -- under one of the first Measure 37 claims in Marion County -- to build on 217 acres in the hills south of Salem won't break ground anytime soon.
Both the owners and neighbors near the proposed subdivision have appealed the county planning commission's decision, which reduced the number of lots from 43 to 28.
LeRoy Laack, one of the property owners, said he is frustrated with the interference by government -- partly because the delay is costly. He said the process has cost thousands of dollars.
"I am very much opposed to too much regulation from any municipality," he said. "The thing that has made America a great country is people have a say in what they do."
Neighbors around the proposed development worry mainly about the new wells affecting existing groundwater supplies. They also are frustrated by the county's decision because they have spent close to $20,000 fighting the development.
"It seems to me the cost should be on the developers," neighbor Laurel Hines said. "They should have to explore the resources before they allow the new use."
The new development is on land zoned exclusively for farm use. But Laack and another one of the four owners qualified for the development under Measure 37, which requires local governments to pay for value reductions caused by land-use regulations or waive the regulations.
After three packed hearings, the county planning commissioners approved the subdivision as long as the landowner reconfigured the parcels so that there are no more than 28 lots of at least five acres each, and one 80-acre lot. The owners originally proposed 43 lots.
Owners also have to review the area's available groundwater. A review is a less intense effort because it considers existing wellwater data and does not require scientists to collect new data.
bcasper@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 589-6994
Statesman Journal
March 17, 2007
Property owners with approval -- under one of the first Measure 37 claims in Marion County -- to build on 217 acres in the hills south of Salem won't break ground anytime soon.
Both the owners and neighbors near the proposed subdivision have appealed the county planning commission's decision, which reduced the number of lots from 43 to 28.
LeRoy Laack, one of the property owners, said he is frustrated with the interference by government -- partly because the delay is costly. He said the process has cost thousands of dollars.
"I am very much opposed to too much regulation from any municipality," he said. "The thing that has made America a great country is people have a say in what they do."
Neighbors around the proposed development worry mainly about the new wells affecting existing groundwater supplies. They also are frustrated by the county's decision because they have spent close to $20,000 fighting the development.
"It seems to me the cost should be on the developers," neighbor Laurel Hines said. "They should have to explore the resources before they allow the new use."
The new development is on land zoned exclusively for farm use. But Laack and another one of the four owners qualified for the development under Measure 37, which requires local governments to pay for value reductions caused by land-use regulations or waive the regulations.
After three packed hearings, the county planning commissioners approved the subdivision as long as the landowner reconfigured the parcels so that there are no more than 28 lots of at least five acres each, and one 80-acre lot. The owners originally proposed 43 lots.
Owners also have to review the area's available groundwater. A review is a less intense effort because it considers existing wellwater data and does not require scientists to collect new data.
bcasper@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 589-6994
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)