COPIES OF TESTIMONY (ARRIVED AFTER DEADLINE)
- Bill and Sue Rizor to Ellie Dumdi
- Bill and Sue Rizor to Steve Gordon and Tim Bingham
- Claus Wahnsiedler to Ruth Bascom
- Claus Wahnsiedler to Ellie Dumdi
May 6, 1992
Dear Ellie Dumdi, Chairperson:
As a potential landowner in the West Eugene Wetlands Secondary Study area, I would like
to express some of my feelings about this project.
To begin with, my wife and I sold our home with the intention of purchasing sixty eight
acres on Monteith Lane which is just west of Greenhill road and off of Bodenhammer road.
We placed a sizable down payment on the property and entered into a short term lease on
the land, waiting for finances and financing to clear. Upon recent publication of the
study, the lending institution has issued a strong balk to the financing of this property.
The reason they are giving is that there will be potential sever decreases in the
valuation of those lands due to the impact of the Government acquisition of the
surrounding lands. L-COG has said that this will not affect values, but the facts seem to
be that values are going to decrease.
I should mention that less than one half of the property is even considered to be
Hydric soil by the Soil Conservation Service. Everything, with the exception of the house
and barns, is and has been farmed for over thirty years by the past owner and has a record
of farming before that.
As a landowner, I question if the needs of the rural citizens are truly being met. It
appears that the Secondary study is intended to benefit the city dwellers and their big
business aspirations.
I would like to suggest that the Secondary plan be ELIMINATED. It appears to me that if
fair market value is truly to be paid in compensation for Mitigation lands, and with the
right of refusal by the landowner, that the study program could accomplish the same end
without prior labeling and designation of lands. In the end this could prevent the
Economic impact to the innocent property holders that wish to remain in the Agricultural
business with their lands in their current production levels. If, in fact, the owners wish
to sell to BLM they could and nothing would change--provided there are no hidden agendas.
Please reconsider the adoption of the Secondary plan for the good of all Lane County
citizens.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Bill and Sue Rizor
5/6/92
Mr. Steve Gordan
L-COG
In our meeting last week, you indicated that you would be pleased to answer some of my
questions in writing and under your division letterhead. I was very pleased to hear this
and would like to avail myself of this opportunity as I think it may help the situation
with the lending institution.
1. Could you please explain how the impact of the Secondary study will effect general
valuations of the targeted lands and why.
2. I feel assurances are needed that current and future operations on the E 40 zoned
properties will not be affected by the study, relative to future zoning, restrictions, and
planned studies. Provided that ordinances and common practices are met and continued.
3. Something needs to be established concerning the fair market value of properties
taking into consideration the total property, not just the poorest soils at the poorest
soil prices. Please keep in mind that in purchasing property all soil types are acquired a
blanket price. In addition, in taxation all soil types are valued at a blended price over
the entirety of a given holding.
4. Assurances are needed that all buffer zones will be placed on acquired land and that
no restrictions will apply to the remaining property holdings.
5. The question of water rights needs to be cleared for future consideration. Will the
current rights and access to the source and supply remain unchanged by the wetlands study
implementation.
6. Please reassure that the right to refusal and the right to sell to anyone of choice
will not be changed by the study.
7. Would you please explain the impact and ramifications to both the project and the
land owner if the secondary study lands were deleted from the plan?
8. Please explain the acceptance of responsibility for vector control and other
negative impacts, by L-COG and the county government?
9. Could you please address the problem of continued drainage, now in place, in
reference to ditches, culverts, and down the line water passage? If wetlands are created,
is it not safe to assume water passage will be stopped or delayed?
Thank you for your consideration;
[Signature]
Bill and Sue Rizor
Claus and Renate Wahnsiedler
2 May 1992
Ruth Bascom
Dear Councilor Bascom,
As a homeowner living on Royal Ave. we have been confronted with a very disturbing
development effecting the welfare and future of my family. We own 42 acres and raise
cattle.
The cause is a proposal by the LCOG headed by Mr. Gordon to create under the cover of a
wetlands protection plan a "Amazon Scenic Wild Life Park" with bicycle lanes
along a corridor of the Amazon Canal, also known as the West Eugene Wetlands Plan.
In meetings I attended to find out some explanations and logical points how the
proposed plan will deal with the rights of property owners, important issues were side
stepped and not discussed.
The most important question is the rights of the property owner which will be totally
violated in eny variations depending if your land has to be taken away from the owner to
create this project or if someone is a neighbor to this project which will degrade the
value of property. With the publication of this proposal weeks ago and the surfacing of
the potential negative impact on property values, presently we would be unable to sell our
property at all or for only a reduced value and in additional are in uncertainty if we
face restriction in the use of our land, like raising cattle. While the life of many
people is in disarray at the same time a bureaucrat like Mr.Gordon enjoys national
recognition and awards for his so called "Achievements" in wetland creation and
the proposal of the Amazon Canal project Which is supposed to be a model and pilot project
for the whole nation, according to the article in the Register Guard of an interview with
Mr. Sordon.
I urge you as an elected office holder to scrutinize this proposal and the intentions
of Mr.Gordon, don't let an unelected and unaccountable Bureaucrat over your hed make up
policies which effect the community and will violate the rights of property owners as
guaranteed by the constitution.
Sincerely,
Claus Wahnsiedler
Ellie Dumdi, Chairperson
Lane County Board of Commissioners
125 E 8th. Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
89779 Monteith Lane
Eugene, Oregon 97402
Phone:
689-5647
Return to Top
Mr. Tim Bingham
99779 Monteith Lane
Eugene, Oregon
97402
689-5647
Return to Top
City of Eugene Council
777 Pearl Street
Eugene, OR 97401
Return to Top
