Will wonders ever cease?
....in the ongoing struggle of E vs. The State House
Actually got a response to the E-Mail of the last post (05 FEB 2008):
Dear E,
Thank you for writing to me regarding the former Cedar Hills Hospital. I appreciate hearing from you.
I have toured the proposed facility and have talked at length with the people who are applying for the certificate of need. I feel confident that this will be a secure facility and that neighbors will not be in danger once the hospital is operational; they will be treating sick people, not criminals. It is unfortunate that you did not learn about the plans from the company making the proposal and I have encouraged them to hold a neighborhood meeting to answer questions and provide reassurance. Additionally, the company plans to do several million dollars worth of renovation and if the facility is approved, they will be providing many good paying jobs both during the construction phase and at the hospital once it opens.
You do make a valid point about notification to renters and I will keep this idea in mind when considering legislation for the future..
If you have further questions or concerns on this issue, please feel free to contact my office any time.
Best Regards,
Suzanne Bonamici
Representative Suzanne Bonamici
900 Court St. NE H-374
Salem, OR 97301
503-986-1434 office
rep.suzannebonamici@state.or.us
So, I responded to the Representitive:
Hey Suzie-Q, (OK...no, I didn't open it like that, but still......)
I first off wish to thank you for your prompt response. The fact that you took the time to E-Mail back to me means a great deal to this constituant!
However, again....I am officially NEUTRAL on the re-opening of the Cedar Hills Hospital.
Ma'am, the crux of my E-Mail (as convoluted as it was) is my grave concern about the fact that the notification process DOES INDEED have to be changed to include ALL KNOWN ADDRESSES WITHIN AN XXX-FOOT RADIUS FROM the proposed site of the Land Use Review....instead of the current statute requirement of notifying land-owners only!
As you stated in your E-Mail, yes, indeed: It WOULD have been nice for AscentHealth to have a neighbourhood meeting to INFORM and REASSURE neighbours of this project.....
Obviously, they believed that it wasn't in their best interest to do so......
Sadly, I must respectfully disagree with you, ma'am, in that notification of ALL addresses, including shopkeepers leasing in strip malls or tenants renting apartments, is hardly an issue for consideration. Rather, I feel that it is a matter that should be addressed quickly.
Honestly, Representative Bonamici, it is a simple matter of altering the language of Oregon Revised Statute 215.416.11.E.c.A and 227.175.10.E.c.A
FROM:
"Notice of a decision under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be provided to the applicant and TO THE OWNERS OF RECORD OF PROPERTY on the most recent property tax assessment roll where such property is located:"
TO:
"Notice of a (i) DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION BEING SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNING BODY (ii) decision under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be provided to the applicant and TO RESIDENTS OF ALL KNOWN ADDRESSES ON FILE WITH THE (City/County) BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE JURISIDICTION and to the owners of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment roll where such property is located:"
In Public Sector Urban Planning, we call this a "Text Amendment" when we alter our Development Code in this manner.
It's not an idea with life-threatening implications for the entire state.....it's a change in the text and the notifying requirements for development actions when a proposed development action may have adverse effects to the nearby residents.
It's not even time consuming.....heck, I just formatted an example for you, ma'am. :-)
Representative Bonamici, if you feel that this wording and the new requirement that it carries should not be introduced into the House, I respectfully request to hear you opinions and reasoning.
Many thanks again, and keep up the great work!
Sincerely,
-E-
I ain't holding my breath on this one.....my pockets ain't deep enough to actually have any sort of legitimate influence!
Hmmm....really don't care much for the guy, but if the Legislature ignores this issue........wonder if I can get Bill Sizemore and OSPIRG on board with this......
......although, getting them in THE SAME ROOM together would be a newsworthy event....
-E-
....in the ongoing struggle of E vs. The State House
Actually got a response to the E-Mail of the last post (05 FEB 2008):
Dear E,
Thank you for writing to me regarding the former Cedar Hills Hospital. I appreciate hearing from you.
I have toured the proposed facility and have talked at length with the people who are applying for the certificate of need. I feel confident that this will be a secure facility and that neighbors will not be in danger once the hospital is operational; they will be treating sick people, not criminals. It is unfortunate that you did not learn about the plans from the company making the proposal and I have encouraged them to hold a neighborhood meeting to answer questions and provide reassurance. Additionally, the company plans to do several million dollars worth of renovation and if the facility is approved, they will be providing many good paying jobs both during the construction phase and at the hospital once it opens.
You do make a valid point about notification to renters and I will keep this idea in mind when considering legislation for the future..
If you have further questions or concerns on this issue, please feel free to contact my office any time.
Best Regards,
Suzanne Bonamici
Representative Suzanne Bonamici
900 Court St. NE H-374
Salem, OR 97301
503-986-1434 office
rep.suzannebonamici@state.or.us
So, I responded to the Representitive:
Hey Suzie-Q, (OK...no, I didn't open it like that, but still......)
I first off wish to thank you for your prompt response. The fact that you took the time to E-Mail back to me means a great deal to this constituant!
However, again....I am officially NEUTRAL on the re-opening of the Cedar Hills Hospital.
Ma'am, the crux of my E-Mail (as convoluted as it was) is my grave concern about the fact that the notification process DOES INDEED have to be changed to include ALL KNOWN ADDRESSES WITHIN AN XXX-FOOT RADIUS FROM the proposed site of the Land Use Review....instead of the current statute requirement of notifying land-owners only!
As you stated in your E-Mail, yes, indeed: It WOULD have been nice for AscentHealth to have a neighbourhood meeting to INFORM and REASSURE neighbours of this project.....
Obviously, they believed that it wasn't in their best interest to do so......
Sadly, I must respectfully disagree with you, ma'am, in that notification of ALL addresses, including shopkeepers leasing in strip malls or tenants renting apartments, is hardly an issue for consideration. Rather, I feel that it is a matter that should be addressed quickly.
Honestly, Representative Bonamici, it is a simple matter of altering the language of Oregon Revised Statute 215.416.11.E.c.A and 227.175.10.E.c.A
FROM:
"Notice of a decision under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be provided to the applicant and TO THE OWNERS OF RECORD OF PROPERTY on the most recent property tax assessment roll where such property is located:"
TO:
"Notice of a (i) DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION BEING SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNING BODY (ii) decision under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be provided to the applicant and TO RESIDENTS OF ALL KNOWN ADDRESSES ON FILE WITH THE (City/County) BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE JURISIDICTION and to the owners of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment roll where such property is located:"
In Public Sector Urban Planning, we call this a "Text Amendment" when we alter our Development Code in this manner.
It's not an idea with life-threatening implications for the entire state.....it's a change in the text and the notifying requirements for development actions when a proposed development action may have adverse effects to the nearby residents.
It's not even time consuming.....heck, I just formatted an example for you, ma'am. :-)
Representative Bonamici, if you feel that this wording and the new requirement that it carries should not be introduced into the House, I respectfully request to hear you opinions and reasoning.
Many thanks again, and keep up the great work!
Sincerely,
-E-
I ain't holding my breath on this one.....my pockets ain't deep enough to actually have any sort of legitimate influence!
Hmmm....really don't care much for the guy, but if the Legislature ignores this issue........wonder if I can get Bill Sizemore and OSPIRG on board with this......
......although, getting them in THE SAME ROOM together would be a newsworthy event....
-E-
posted by CN250 at 11:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home