Document text
http:// --> Ashland, Oregon HOME Valley & State Sports Nation & World Opinion/Editorial Classifieds Business Columnists Obituaries Weather Archive Hot Topics Forum Photo Gallery Past Readers Polls Revels Etcetera Backpage O-Zone Special Sections Real Estate Guide Menu Guide Shakespeare Subscribe Contact Us Rate Card Place an Ad Online Games Movie Preview October 18, 2006 Condo ordinance a knee-jerk mistake The Ashland Planning Commission is hot-footing an ordinance through the proper channels that will not only further restrict the rights of landowners in regards to their property, but also quite possibly do the exact opposite of what it is intended to do. This is politics, Ashland style, where knee-jerk reactions lead to complicated and often conflicting laws. This will further clog a planning process that already resembles rush-hour on Los Angeles freeways. The latest ordinance will block apartment building owners from converting to condominiums that can be sold rather than rented. Supporters of the ordinance believe converting apartments to condos will shrink the supply of affordable housing in Ashland. They believe that anyone seeking to make such a conversion will make lavish changes to otherwise mundane apartments and sell them at outrageous profits. All of which is highly speculative. The owner of the apartments on Park Street, a conversion project that planning commissioners reluctantly passed while vowing to hurry along the aforementioned ordinance, says he has no intention of converting the new condos into luxury apartments. It will be interesting to see what these condos will sell for and who exactly the buyers are. These condos will offer renters in Ashland the chance to buy something far less costly than a three bedroom house with a yard. This is affordable housing that comes as a result of natural adjustments in the marketplace rather than government manipulation. Despite all the warm fuzzy support politicians earn for touting a vague concept of affordable housing, the jury remains decidedly out on how effective the city's efforts have been, or will be. Significant questions, most notably how will such housing be paid for, remain. The lack of a clear affordable housing definition — is it just rentals, is it price-controlled homes, is it a first-time buyer program that allows people to buy and grow equity, is it some combination of several factors? — is a serious problem when so many decisions, like the pending condo conversion ordinance, are being made with the stated goal of protecting affordable housing options. The Tidings Editorial board can't agree on a definition of affordable housing. Nor do we agree on how important this issue is. But, we can agree that government intervention needs to be done with greater care and open discussion than this ordinance has received. The planning commission will pass it. Hopefully that body will take into consideration the impact of yet another piecemeal ordinance approach taking place outside of a revamped comprehensive plan for the city. Current Comments: Yet another reason why left-leaning big government does not work. Give me smaller, pragmatic government that actively supports protection of private property rights and lean, unambiguous, sensible building codes any time. Doug Forsyth - Ashland - October 18th, 2:15 PM I keep hearing that "they" don't want Ashland to turn into another Vail or Carmel. Like that is a bad thing? I'd love to live in either of those places. Unfortunately, Ashland is all I can afford. Les - Ashland, OR - October 19th, 3:39 AM Someday when I retire I think I'd like to move to Ashland and be on the Planning Commission. Why? Because there's nothing to do. No matter what development plans you create there's an Ashland special interest group that will fight tooth and nail (legally or even illegally if they think its needed) to stop it. So what are you left with? Either do nothing or else tell already developed properties how they should operate their businesses. Sounds like a cushy retirement job to me. Kirk Evenson - Sioux Falls, South Dakota - October 19th, 10:35 AM Kirk, The Ashland Planning Commission is all volunteer and given the controversy not so "cushy" I'm at a loss as to why trying to keep rentals rentals is bad for Ashland. Half of us live in rentals and reducing supply to support more second homes or investment properties creates fewer units for those of us that work in the restaurants feeding the tourists. It'd be different if new apartments were being built but from what I see its all large houses for retirees or townhomes for weekenders. resident worker - ashland, or - October 20th, 12:26 AM That's right Les, you can afford Ashland. Without ordances like this you might as well move to Carmel. As a city we work hard for some affordable housing. I remember a women writing the Tiding to complain about low income housing, she wanted middle income housing subsidies she would qualify for. Housing gets high enough she will be considerd low income. Economic diversity is good for the community. Personally I don't want to live in Carmel, Vail or any rich bedroom community. Paul - ashland oregon - October 23rd, 7:14 AM Leave a Comment: Advertisement: Advertisement: Paid Advertising Inkjet Printers Student Loans Water Filter Helzberg Diamonds Mortgage Calculator Security Systems Advertisement: Copyright © 2006 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.