Thursday, July 15, 2004
No Growth Group Gives Up
Alternatives to Growth Oregon, a no-growth group, is shutting its doors after about seven years. Andy Kerr, who spoke on behalf of the group at the American Dream Coalition conference in April, says the group has run out of money.
The group began in 1997 when Kerr and his associates held a no-growth conference in Portland that was so popular they had to turn people away. The group claimed 1,000 dues-paying members. But now Kerr says the group's goal of stopping Oregon growth "was not going to be met, at least in the short run."
In the last legislature, the group tried to make it possible for cities to charge developers for the cost of schools. Under current Oregon law, cities can assess special development charges for water, sewer, and certain other capital costs, but not schools. The bill failed.
While free marketeers agree with the no-growthers that growth should not be subsidized, it isn't clear that schools are being subsidized. Some residential areas don't pay enough taxes to cover the costs of schools, but that is true of both new and existing residential areas. The difference is paid by commercial areas, whose taxes also go for schools but which send few or no children to those schools. Unless you think commercial tax rates should be reduced, there are really no school subsidies.
Still, it is sad to see Alternatives to Growth Oregon disappear because in many respects they presented a saner view than the dominant planning paradigm in Oregon.
The group began in 1997 when Kerr and his associates held a no-growth conference in Portland that was so popular they had to turn people away. The group claimed 1,000 dues-paying members. But now Kerr says the group's goal of stopping Oregon growth "was not going to be met, at least in the short run."
In the last legislature, the group tried to make it possible for cities to charge developers for the cost of schools. Under current Oregon law, cities can assess special development charges for water, sewer, and certain other capital costs, but not schools. The bill failed.
While free marketeers agree with the no-growthers that growth should not be subsidized, it isn't clear that schools are being subsidized. Some residential areas don't pay enough taxes to cover the costs of schools, but that is true of both new and existing residential areas. The difference is paid by commercial areas, whose taxes also go for schools but which send few or no children to those schools. Unless you think commercial tax rates should be reduced, there are really no school subsidies.
Still, it is sad to see Alternatives to Growth Oregon disappear because in many respects they presented a saner view than the dominant planning paradigm in Oregon.
Comments:
Post a Comment
