2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

CHANGES!!! 

I think the BETC has proven to be an incentive for developers to essentially game the system by subdividing projects which also allows them to avoid EFSC and the state regulatory processes.

I think BETC needs to make sure developers do not improperly subdivide projects thus creating accumulating effects to our natural resources and bypass state regulatory process and regulations (such as the 3 mile buffer zone ODFW requires around sage-grouse leks.) 

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I think it is important to remember development is development--even if it is called "green." Why is money going to developers and not conservation and mitigation around projects? Can BETC be reshaped to provide tax breaks for development that actually is "green" and when developers are good stewards to the places they develop? 

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context