Document text
By Brent Thompson October 12. 2014 12:01AM Infill is the answer to growth issues Regarding how Medford should accommodate growth, a few years ago while President of Friends of Jackson County I was asked to be part of a group to study Medford geographic expansion options. This group was called the Boundary Advisory Committee. This was an effort besides the Regional Problem Solving project, which had been dealing with regional master planning for years. During the Regional Problem Solving process Friends of Jackson County and the 1000 Friends of Oregon local representative, Greg Holmes, repeatedly pointed out that the population density of Medford was so low that with a creative infill program Medford could absorb tens of thousands of new residents without adding to its geographical size and still have a relatively low density compared with many cities. At that time Medford’s density was less than 2,800 people per square mile, which meant there was a long and consistent history of Medford using more land than necessary to accomplish development goals While attending Boundary Advisory Committee meetings and reading the inevitable email traffic, I asked about the formation of a Medford “Infill Committee.” The response was that any Infill Committee would be appointed later. Since a Medford infill program was so obviously needed, it seemed appropriate that the Boundary Advisory Committee expand its mission to also make infill suggestions. If the council did not like it, they could disband us. But Medford’s planning staff felt compelled to stick to their assignment. The Boundary Advisory Committee was eventually disbanded and an “Infill Committee” never was appointed, although Medford is doing better at using land more efficiently. There are many large sections ripe for infill programs, such as the area between Riverside Avenue and Central/Court streets, the area northwest of the intersection of Crater Lake Avenue and East Jackson Street and the entire west Medford area. But the reality is that the whole city should be studied for infill options and the land-use code altered as necessary to get the job done. Available land inventories should include any underdeveloped parcels, not just vacant parcels. While most agree that increasing density is not always desirable, the impact of traffic-generating, resource-wasting and habitat-destroying sprawl is worse. Thus, an aggressive infill program with a sensitivity to any historic buildings and districts is the lesser of two evils. But naturally, Medford or any city wouldn’t have to struggle with population growth and infill if our poor misguided people in Congress such as U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley and U.S. Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Greg Walden fought for a stabilization of the U.S. population as a way to lessen local growth trauma as well as a means of leveling the amount of over-consuming Americans disproportionately contributing to global warming. But they won’t. Our representatives, with the exception of Rep. Peter DeFazio, who understands the issue, are wedded to supporting a U.S. economy based on ever more Americans needing ever more goods, services and housing, and therefore, ever more Americans disproportionately contributing to international environmental degradation. With the exception of Merkley, the above five have been around a long time. Thus, at this point, it is obvious that all but one can’t or won’t make those important associations. Pity. But we can at least ask them when they think the U.S. might finally have enough people. What number would they choose? Meanwhile, many locals feel that Medford and the Rogue Valley already have enough people. And because of Congressional pro-growth policies, we will have more, and the best way of absorbing new residents is for Medford and other cities to infill rather than continue to sprawl. Brent Thompson of Ashland is a former president of the Southern Oregon Land Conservancy, the Jackson County Citizen’s League and Friends of Jackson County. http://www.mailtribune.com/article/20141012/OPINION/141019948 © 2015 Copyright © 1995-2011 Crain Communications Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement -->