|
luba grand puba
law degree...who needs one?
First, I can't take credit for the title.
It's all Sal. He has a knack for such things, which is why I cut him
so much slack when he's spent the evening watching FoodTV and I've spent
four fruitless hours in front of the computer in a vain attempt to write
that month's issue of The Hallway with nothing to show for it but
"Let's see, what did we do this month and why do I always start an issue
this way when I know it's going to end in a complete rewrite anyway and
probably the hurling of office paraphernalia onto the floor in a fit of
frustrated rage?" And then he just swoops in with his clever
little titles that are sure to make everyone laugh and I just want to smack
him with a paperback thesaurus but I can't because he's so damn charming and
it really is a good title.
Wait, what
were talking about?
Oh right, LUBA. If you've been
reading -- or at least skimming -- the newsletter since Fall 2002, you know that in addition to all the usual insanity that is SOP in the
Hall household, we have been inextricably entangled in an honest-to-God
legal battle with a developer who wants to put a thirty-five unit, five
story -- FIVE fuh-reakin'-STORY -- building across the street.
Possibly as much as seven stories, depending on which of two courses the
developer chooses. Along with a handful of neighbors, we've managed to
successfully keep this from happening thus far and intend to keep going
until one of two things happens: 1) the thing is restricted to our
collective satisfaction or 2) we're all stone dead.
Just to recap, "LUBA" stands for Land Use
Board of Appeals, which is the state judicial body that governs land use
(duh) disputes. Boiling down our particular dispute: sleazy
developer wants to build the aforementioned five story monstrosity, the
neighborhood says, "Uh, I don't think so, Sparky", a series of hearings
before the City follow, then the mysterious rituals of appeal to LUBA with
codewords like "NITA" and "intervenor", then a win, remand to the City, a
flurry of parking analysis and testimony, a predictable ruling against us from the
City... and we were back at LUBA. And then LUBA remanded to the City
again, meaning we get to lather, rinse, repeat, apparently ad infinitum.
So, our little group of land-use guerrilla
fighters -- the LUBA-nators, as Julie has termed us -- is now going through
the familiar motions. Again. Since it's become such a significant part of our life, we thought it was time you saw some of what we're
talking about. Admittedly, you would have to be pretty damn bored to
find this as interesting as we do, but such boredom does happen and hey,
that's what this website is all about.
1.23.04 update
Our fight is over. Two words: WE WON!
The developer our neighborhood has been fighting for over
two years has withdrawn his zone change application, citing our recent win
at LUBA that remanded the decision back to City Council as the reason and
saying that he didn’t want to face yet another round at the City and LUBA.
There will not be a five story building going up across
the street, thanks to the tremendous efforts of members of the
Cathedral Park neighborhood, and most especially due to the unfailing
effort of Deb, Erik, and Julie, who, along with Sal and I, comprise the "LUBA-nators".
Together, we've successfully fought the developer through five City
Council hearings, two LUBA filings/hearings, and two City Council remands.
Together, we've proved that sometimes, the good guys really do win. |
|
chronology
-
October 20, 2002: the
(in)famous legal brief to LUBA.
We won the first and fourth assignments of error.
-
January 26, 2003: the
proposed development we're
fighting. This is a to-scale "blackout" of the development taken from the
St. Johns Bridge. It's based on what the city code will allow for the approved
zone change and approximated to scale according to the size of surrounding
structures. Our house, which can normally be seen from the bridge, is
completely obliterated by the big black box.
-
February 23, 2003:
demand analysis. This is
the analysis of the numbers collected and presented at the February 27th City
Council remand hearing. The following files provided foundation for the
analysis:
-
March 12, 2003: demand
analysis addendum. This is a
short analysis submitted at the March 13th hearing based on extensive
additional data collected between the first and second hearings. It provides
even more substantiation of our case.
-
June 19, 2003:
my brief for the second LUBA
appeal, filing as a petitioner-intervenor (which just means I filed on
Deb's side -- the petitioner -- as a secondary party).
-
December 18, 2003: LUBA rules
on the case, partially sustaining one of Deb's arguments, one of Erik's, and
two of mine, thus remanding it to the City of Portland.
-
January 23, 2004: the
developer withdraws his application from the City Planning department, citing
the difficult fight put up by the neighborhood as his reason. General
merriment at the neighborhood pub ensues.
-
February 22, 2004: the
LUBA-nators celebrate in proper style. See the pictures,
read about the
party.
|
