Board rejects 'community' status for land use group.

Byline: COUNTY BEAT by Joe Mosley The Register-Guard

IT WOULD HAVE been a case of the watchdog running free in the henhouse.

Officials of LandWatch Lane County were rebuffed this week in an attempt to achieve "community organization" status for their group, which advocates strict adherence to land-use regulations.

Members of the organization frequently monitor county land-use proceedings and testify at public hearings on rezoning applications or other proposals that may affect natural resources.

In letters sent to the county in April and again in August, LandWatch sought the same designation now given groups such as the Alvadore Community Group, the McKenzie Watershed Council and the Goshen Area Neighborhood Association.

Commissioners discussed the letters this week and concluded that community organizations should represent geographic communities - specific portions of the county - rather than "philosophical communities." Only Commissioner Peter Sorenson defended the group's proposal.

"I have concerns about extending the scope of this community organization program to special interest groups," Commissioner Cindy Weeldreyer said. "There are other ways for special interests or communities of interest to organize ... that wouldn't be as costly to the county."

Cost was a big factor in the commissioners' decision. If given status as a community organization, LandWatch would become exempt from paying fees to file land-use appeals. The county's Land Management Division is entirely fee-based.

"That fact, that they're fee-based, puts all the incentive on pro-development," says Rich Fairbanks, the LandWatch official who wrote to the county about forming a community organization. "The Planning Department has lots of incentive to write lots of permits, because that's how they get their money. It's just a situation that invites problems."

But Fairbanks says the fee waiver is just one advantage of community organization status. Another big one would be automatic notification of any proposed county action that may affect the group's membership - in the case of LandWatch, any planning or land-use application.

"That's the big deal with us - we can't find out, half the time, what they're doing," Fairbanks says. "The majority of county commissioners, by this action, are saying, 'We don't want oversight.' '

Hold those petitions

Three candidates for the county Board of Commissioners have been advised by the Elections Division to put their prospective petition drives on hold.

Commissioner Bill Dwyer, who is running for re-election; Tom Atkinson, who is challenging Dwyer for the board's Springfield seat; and Dianne Burch, who is challenging west Lane district Commissioner Anna Morrison, all have filed for prospective nominating petitions.

Commissioner candidates can return the petitions with the signatures of about 190 registered voters from their respective districts, rather than pay $50 filing fees.

But with the county's once-per-decade reapportionment chore just recently completed, precincts haven't yet been reconfigured to match the new district boundaries. The county Elections Division has until Jan. 31 to complete that process, under Oregon law.

Meanwhile, candidates have been advised that signatures collected before the precinct alignment is completed may or may not be valid because many voters whose homes lie near the new boundaries won't know for sure on which side of the line they live.

But not to worry about those petitions. The filing deadline for next May's primary doesn't come into play until March.

Lane County reporter Joe Mosley can be reached at 338-2384 or by e-mail at [e-mail]