REFERRED TO THE PEOPLE BY INITIATIVE PETITION
24-68
INITIATIVE AMENDING TURNER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP M-7 THEREBY INCREASING UGBQUESTION:Should Turner's Comprehensive Plan Map M-7 be amended to add land between Wipper Road and 55th Avenue South of Turner?
SUMMARY: This initiative measure proposes to amend the Turner Comprehensive Plan Map M-7 by adding land south of the current Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) lying between 55th Avenue on the East and Wipper Road on the West. This initiative measure does not change the current Turner City limits. This initiative measure is the first legislative step to add land to the Turner Urban Growth Boundary. If this measure is passed by Turner, the measure would then be submitted to Marion County for approval or rejection. If Marion County approves this measure, then the Comprehensive Plan Map M-7 would be changed.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
This measure, an initiative by electors of the City of Turner, proposes expanding the City's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) by adding 76.93 acres as depicted on the map below. This area had been previously identified for possible future expansion for industrial development in the 1982 agreement with Marion County at such time as the City could justify the need.
If this measure passes, expansion of the City's UGB is not automatic. In order for the City Council to consider amending the UGB, as proposed by this initiative, the City Council must apply Statewide Planning Goal 14 on Urbanization and Statewide Planning Goal 3 on Agricultural lands. The City Council would also have to adopt necessary findings, under City rules for legislative land use decisions, and then present an amended Comprehensive Plan, with supporting justification and findings, to the Marion County Board of Commissioners for approval. The State would also have to concur with any decision of the City Council and Marion County Board of Commissioners to expand the UGB.
A decision for or against this measure will have no bearing on any proposed development. The issue is simply whether or not the City needs additional land placed in reserve for future industrial development.
This initiative does not change the current city limits of Turner. Any changes to the city limits would be by a separate legal process, such as annexation.
Submitted by:
Charles F. Spies
City Administrator, City of Turner
Arguments in Favor
SEDCOR is a regional economic development organization for Marion and Polk Counties, dedicated to creating and maintaining a strong economy throughout our region. We urge the citizens of Turner to vote "YES" on Measure 24-68 to include additional industrial property in the Turner Urban Growth Boundary.
For years, SEDCOR has been concerned about the diminishing supply of industrial land in our area. Without new industrial land, we will not have room for existing industries to expand or for new industry to locate to provide needed jobs.
Manufacturing jobs are essential to our economy because they are the highest paid private sector jobs we have. Additionally, studies have shown that manufacturing employers generally provide much more in the way of tax revenues to a community than they use in services.
The land that is the subject of Measure 24-68 was once within the Turner Urban Growth Boundary. It was removed because the city was unable to provide adequate sewer and water services to the land. The city is now able to provide those services and this is an important opportunity to bring this property back into the UGB.
We urge you to protect the economic health of Turner and Marion County by voting "YES" on Measure 24-68.
Larry Glassock
President
Salem Economic Development Corporation (SEDCOR)
Reasons to vote yes on ballot measure 24-68 for the Urban Growth Boundary south of Turner.
- We included this in our first land use plan in the 1970's.
- The people that own the property should have the right to have all of their property in the city.
- We need to attract industrial and commercial business's so we can increase the tax base.
- We have the new sewer project completed, so let us start planning for a wonderful future.
Richard M. Bates
Vote Yes on this measure to preserve the quality of life in Turner.
With out some form of industrial and commercial development to increase the tax base the citizens of Turner will be faced with increased sewer and water rates to maintain the current level of services. With additional taxes from industry and commerce the city will be able to provide improvements without burdening citizens.
The Turner City Council spent $30,000.00 of taxpayer monies for the periodic review of its Comprehensive Plan. This review acknowledges that with the recent loss of 135 acres of Industrial zoned land the city is only left with 56 acres, 27 of which is currently being considered for a proposed power plant. This would leave the City with virtually no remaining land for industrial development. The City staff and planning consultant recommended that the city should maintain some reserve of industrial zoned property and include this 77 acres in the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for industrial expansion. The property would still have to be annexed into the city allowing all the voters to decide on the merits of any proposed project.
Four Councilors have ignored the recommendations of the professional Planer, City staff and citizens by voting not to include this property in the UGB, thus eliminating any opportunity for the citizens to vote. These four have also voted not to place the question of UGB expansion on the ballot. Furthermore they rejected a request from Calpine to increase the UGB in the area in question that would have provided options for better locating the plant to benefit the Quality of life in Turner.
The Citizens of Turner have the right to decide on issues that affect the future of the community; not four citizens who are using their position on the city council to promote their own personal views.
Your YES vote on this initiative will send a clear message to these Councilors.
J. Craig Spanihower
Arguments Against
Turner voters are being asked to vote on a measure that may be an illegal voter subject. At the February 8, 2001 Council meeting the Mayor made a motion almost identical to the proposed ballot question. The motion failed and the Mayor then blasted the Council in the March Turner Community Newsletter. What he left out however, is that while serving as a Council member in December, 1994 he made a very similar motion about sending a land use issue to the voters for approval. After it passed the council the question of legality surfaced and ironically, one of the current Chief Petitioners was also on the council at that time. The record shows he made a motion, which also passed, to kill the submission to the voters because it was not a legal subject. These same individuals are now asking Turner voters to support their proposition regardless of legality.
The voters should pay special attention to the Ballot Title which reads in part "If this measure is passed by Turner - -." This implies that a yes vote will automatically move this matter to a higher authority. Compare this to the Explanatory Statement and see what really has to happen. There are major STATEWIDE land use laws to deal with that go far beyond a simple yes vote by Turner voters. In fact the City Attorney is on record, in writing, stating that if the measure passes it may be "ADVISORY" only.
The petitioners argue that Turner needs more industrial land set aside but the question is FOR WHOM? Calpine Corporation has already applied to the State for siting which does not include the property in question. Why then this measure - is there a move underway to turn Turner, a quiet residential community of some 1,200 citizens into another Willamette Valley industrial complex?
IS THAT WHAT TURNER CITIZENS WANT!!
The Preserve the Vote Committee has notified Turner citizens that a majority of its City Council is refusing to allow voters an opportunity to vote on a land use issue, namely the expansion of Turner's Urban Growth Boundary. These same Councilors have weighed the pro's and con's of this issue, which included soliciting public concerns and reviewing in detail the report of the City Planner along with the findings of the City Planning Commission. The conclusion was that UGB expansion would probably not be approved by the County and State at this time.
Two major land use issues have taken place in Turner since 1988, both involving properties where the River Bend pit is now located and on both occasions citizen input was not a factor. In 1988 Turner annexed 110 acres without voter approval. Then in 1995 the gravel pit was permitted and even though a strong citizen objection was raised the Council refused to allow a vote. Records show that some of the individuals who are now leading the demand to vote on this UGB matter were involved in keeping citizen input out the previous debate. It seems strange indeed they now are demanding a vote on a land use issue when they argued against it earlier.
Most of the current majority members of the Council were leaders in the 1998 Charter amendment that now gives Turner citizens the final say on annexation matters. This hardly sounds like an irresponsible group of elected officials.
The Committee told the newspaper that this land was needed to accommodate the Calpine Corporation but they have now applied for siting on a piece of land already within Turner's UGB. Why then the need to add this property now - CITIZENS SHOULD DEMAND AN ANSWER FROM THE COMMITTEE.
DON'T BE TRICKED: VOTE "NO" ON MEASURE 24-68
Friends of Cloverdale is a large group of residents who live in South Marion County and formed to protect the rural nature of our area.
Measure 24-68 is a threat to our community. What is its purpose? To change Turner from a rural community by forcing expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for unneeded industrial development that will harm our air quality and clog our roads. The petitioners may want to make you angry with the Turner City Council for not "allowing" you to vote on whether to expand the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The truth is that this is not an annexation issue. The UGB cannot expand unless there is a demonstrated need and it has already been determined that there is no need.
After public hearings, the Turner City Council based its decision on the hearings and legal criteria, such as the official land inventory. The inventory showed that there is already an adequate supply of industrial land within the existing UGB and therefore no expansion of the boundary is warranted. There is also an additional excess of commercially zoned land. It has already been determined that a UGB expansion is not legally justified; this initiative is an attempted end-run around existing laws that will likely spawn lawsuits.
Some may want you to believe this has nothing to do with the proposed power plant. It is likely Calpine would own some of the land in question; thus it would be very easy for them to expand their plant and create even more pollution than currently planned.
Please don't allow more farm land to be ruined for the sake of heavy industry. Don't turn our beautiful area into an Albany/Millersburg which is now ugly, stinky, and polluted.
Friends of Cloverdale Steering Committee
Ron Bell
Elise Lynch
Aileen Kaye
Back to the November Voter Pamphlet Main Page