SIUSLAW NEWS | SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 2021 | 5A
Opinion
City’s annexation plan is disingenuous at best, deceitful at worst
(Editor’s Note: View-
point submissions on this
and other topics are al-
ways welcome as part
of our goal to encourage
community discussion and
exchange of perspectives.)
The Florence City
Council will soon decide
the fate of 70 homeowners
in the original Idylewood
subdivision, prompted
by a Eugene developer’s
request that the City an-
nex Oceana Drive — a
24-foot-wide public road
that runs between Rho-
dodendron Drive and the
developer’s property.
This developer, Ben-
edick Holdings LLC, has
been trying to develop
their acreage between the
Idylewood and Heceta
South neighborhoods for
more than 10 years. After
failing to obtain subdivi-
sion approval from Lane
County, they’re now try-
ing with the City — and
they’ve found a willing
audience.
That’s where Oceana
Drive comes in.
The Benedicks don’t
own Oceana, of course;
it’s a county road main-
tained by Lane County.
But that meager 24 feet
of asphalt where Oceana
touches Rhododendron
gives Benedick — whose
property is a half-mile
away from Rhody — the
contiguity with the City
that they need to argue
for annexation.
And essentially, the
City says, in applying its
“triple majority” stan-
dard, only the Benedicks
count.
Triple majority means
the request comes from
1) a majority of owners,
who 2) own a majority
of the property area, and
3) own property whose
value represents the ma-
jority of the total. Pub-
licly owned property like
Oceana Drive doesn’t
count toward triple ma-
jority requirements, so
the Benedicks get a pass.
This is what’s called a
“cherry stem” annexation;
we’ll leave aside for the
moment the fact that this
kind of annexation is ille-
gal in 16 U.S. states, and
allowed only for govern-
ment property in three or
for others.
The City of Florence
says they’re OK, large-
ly because they’ve done
them before; notably,
Driftwood Shores, where
the “stem” was Rhodo-
dendron Drive.
However, Oceana (and
a portion of Saltaire and
Sandrift) have something
that no previous annex-
ation had: A poison pill.
When the City an-
nexed
Rhododendron
Drive, none of the prop-
erty owners alongside the
road were under any ob-
ligation or requirement
to connect to the sewer,
the Benedicks put in place
the Covenants, Condi-
tions and Restrictions
(CCRs) for Idylewood.
All of these documents
are recorded by Lane
County, and now govern
the 70 lots of the original
Idylewood subdivision.
They are self-renewing,
forever.
Taken together, the Im-
provement
Agreement
and the CCRs say that
Guest Viewpoint
By Bruce Hadley
Idylewood Owners, LLC
nor to become part of the
City.
In fact, almost none
have.
But Idylewood and
Oceana Drive are a very
different case. You see, be-
fore the Benedicks began
to develop Idylewood,
they entered into an “Im-
provement Agreement”
with the City of Flor-
ence. It was signed Feb.
18, 1981, by then-mayor
Roger McCorkle, and Ju-
lius and Justine Benedick,
doing business at that
time as JMB Enterprises,
Inc.
Then, on June 7, 1982,
“the cost of installation of
sanitary sewer lines with-
in the subdivision shall be
borne entirely by the then
lot owners.” This isn’t
talking about individual
hookups; the Agreement
specifically says “the cost
of major trunk lines” shall
be shared pro-rata.
Also, note the use of
the word “shall,” meaning
non-optional.
In addition, the Im-
provement
Agreement
and the CCRs say that
those 70 owners are re-
sponsible for all road
improvements: “paving
with curb and gutters,
storm sewers, and side-
walks,” whenever the
City requests it — “at the
sole discretion of the city
council.”
And, the CCRs add a
helpful timeline: “It be-
ing acknowledged that
these improvements are
generally required within
one year following annex-
ation.”
By the way, both of
these documents are rig-
idly laid out as “non re-
monstrance.” That means
we, the 70 homeowners,
may not object to any
of these events, and we
may not complain. So, no
matter what the City says
about “voluntary” sewer
hookups, that just isn’t so.
And, the true poison
in this pill is that the 70
homeowners — mostly
retired, fixed-income —
have to pay for the sew-
er line construction and
all improvements on our
street. (Spoiler alert: One
of those improvements
will very likely be an at-
tempt to fix our existing
stormwater
problem,
which the City’s Storm
Water Management Plan
described in detail in Oc-
tober 2000.)
The result of all this,
should Benedick’s peti-
tion be approved: We’ll
pay for the infrastructure,
right up to his figurative
doorstep.
Once the property is
annexed, the homeown-
ers can be required to
improve the street and
install the sewer lines at
any time. This is not just a
financial burden; it is also
a liability that will affect
the marketability of our
homes.
It is disingenuous at
best — and deceitful at
worst — to claim that
this annexation petition
affects only the Benedick
property. This decision
has significant finan-
cial ramifications for all
properties along Oceana
Drive, which will be on
the hook for street im-
provements and sewer
lines, and are much more
likely to be forced to an-
nex to the City.
The City keeps trying
to sell this annexation as
a public benefit. If that’s
true, why doesn’t the city
council put this up for a
vote? Or, at a minimum,
suspend its consideration
until everyone can partic-
ipate in a truly open and
public hearing?
LETTERS
Annexation issues
and flooding
There was extreme flooding of San-
drift Street in Idylewood back in 1996
when the rainy season dropped 121
inches. The area was saturated with wa-
ter and Sandrift Street had 3 to 4 inches
of water above the blacktop.
Benedick had a 4-inch pump at the
corner of Oceana and Sandrift Streets
running day and night for weeks on
end trying to keep up with the amount
of water coming out of the area where
Benedick Holdings LLC now wants to
build 40-plus units.
Since 1996, the rain amounts have
been 7 to 8 feet, which filled the ditches
up to the blacktop but not the 10 feet
that was recorded previously. More re-
cently, the water was not pumped out
and 2 to 3 feet of stagnant water stayed
in the ditches for months until it was fi-
nally absorbed into the ground.
The east end of Oceana Street, San-
drift Street and Gullsettle Court are
prone to flooding as this area is close to
the seasonal lakes.
This is Oregon and there are many
more extreme rainy seasons to come.
Tampering with this sensitive wetlands
area, especially when the current flood-
ing issues have not been addressed by
the developer, will cause further prob-
lems to the current homeowners for
years to come.
Annexation of a wetlands/wildlife
area is not something the City of Flor-
ence should never allow.
—Ken Chipps
Florence
Annexation not the ‘cherry
stem’ but it is ‘the shaft’
I’m writing to express my opposition
to the annexation of Oceana Drive, and
my deep concern that the Planning
Commission and the City Council ap-
pear to not care less about the people
this annexation will adversely impact.
All they seem to care about is the
roughly 49 acres that can be developed
at the end of Oceana Drive, the income
it could produce for the Eugene mil-
lionaire that owns it, additional tax rev-
enue for the city, and possibly money
for themselves and friends — knowing
the line of work they are in.
When I watched on TV (terrible au-
dio and video) of the Planning Com-
mission go through the motions of rec-
ommending the annexation, they kept
referring to it as a “cherry stem” annex-
ation, the stem being Oceana Drive and
the cherry being the 49 acres at the end
of Oceana to be developed.
The owner, Benedick Holdings, LLC,
will become richer, while the home
owners on Oceana will become poorer.
Their taxes will be higher, they have to
pay for the road upgrades that will be
needed and they will be losing some of
their front yards with the widening of
the road.
So, instead of calling Oceana Drive
“the stem,” I think it should be called
“the shaft” because that’s what the res-
idents on Oceana Drive will be getting.
And it’s not just Oceana Drive. I
think our Mayor and City Council have
their eyes on the whole Idylewood area
for future annexation, which nobody
wants.
— Brent Johnson
Florence
‘Robber Barons?’
In the Jan. 13 edition of Siuslaw News,
Mr. Jeff Talbot wrote in the second
paragraph of his Letter to the Editor
(“Inclusiveness, Compassion and Posi-
tivity”) he mentions that “our town” was
“...built by loggers and fishermen. That
is certainly true but this country was
also built by robber barons who had
little compassion or concern for those
very loggers and fishermen — only for
their own pockets and bottom line.”
Mr. Talbot makes the jump from
our own little town of Florence direct
to “this country” as if we should now
equate the entire country and it’s citi-
zens to the issues we have here in Flor-
ence.
Robber barons in Florence?
Maybe he was referring to folks like
Davidson Industries in Mapleton who
employed hundreds with good pay-
ing jobs, who supported the Mapleton
School District for decades, or our Flor-
ence and Cushman mills that are no
longer in business that also employed
hundreds — not to mention the as-
sorted small businesses that lived and
thrived along with those mills.
Was he referring to the fishing indus-
try of small family owned businesses
that fought the Siuslaw River in order
to get out to the ocean on a daily ba-
sis in all weather to support and feed
their families and pay taxes to support
schools and infrastructure?
Or the many food stores that thrived
here and paid taxes and supported the
local economy?
Shame on you, sir, to describe these
long-time residents and businesses that
have supported our local economy and
risked their own time and money to be
successful and strive for a better life —
and then equate them with robber bar-
ons?
Further, Mr. Talbot stated, “Hundreds
of residents that have no say or vote in
the matter and are being completely ig-
nored.”
Florence just had an election, and
hundreds did vote. If one chooses to live
outside the boundaries of the election
process, then so be it.
Then, Mr. Talbot went on to say
that “…not one resident of the Oceana
and adjoining streets and subdivisions
wants.”
My congratulations for taking the
time to walk and knock on every door
and speak to every single resident. Per-
haps it is more accurate to say you are
referring only to the folks who appar-
ently signed the “No To Annexation”
letter rather than a blanket statement of
all who live in your stated area.
—Dana Rodet,
37-year Florence resident
Moved to Idylewood
to enjoy tranquil beauty
• Annexation: noun — The act or
an instance of annexing, or adding to
something larger, especially the incor-
poration of new territory into the do-
main of a city, country or state.
Annexation is sought by the builder
(Benedict Holdings) so it can continue
Cloudcroft Lane through our tranquil,
Idylewood community.
With this will come radically in-
creased traffic through our community
and will make walking in our private
streets dangerous.
Included in this annexation plan will
be:
The taking of your property to make
room for sewers, sidewalks and light
poles. Property easements will com-
pletely change our wonderfully private,
green community, into an all-night
lighted environment to invite outside
foot traffic.
Crime will likely follow.
Think those sidewalks and lights are
free? Think again, we will be billed for
them. Some of us will lose all of our
green privacy to give way to the ease-
ments.
The installation of sewer lines; we
have septic tanks and allowing the city
to charge us for sewer lines will cost
over $200 per foot to each homeowner.
And thousands more dollars to have it
connected to your home.
You get: Annexed by saying nothing.
Watch the greenery fade to stained
concrete and the wildlife with it. Count
on your property values declining in-
stead of rapidly increasing as ours is the
type of neighborhood people pay a ton
for to get away from city zones.
The City gets: To take away a chunk
of the property you paid for (or are
paying for already) along your street.
They also get to bring in heavy equip-
ment for months, blocking driveways,
creating noise and ruining the beautiful
trees and landscape. They will also get
to take away your green natural privacy
walls and open our community to end-
less cross traffic as folks will start cut-
ting through our neighborhood to get
to and from Highway 101.
The City will also get to build side-
walks and install light poles in our wire-
less/no pole community.
And finally — the best part — the City
will get to bill you thousands of dollars
for doing it all. That money will not be
well spent on home improvements, but
it will help lower your property values.
If you are fortunate enough to have
lived here your whole life, this may not
sound serious enough. However, like so
many others, I moved here from a large
city in California. I moved to Idyle-
wood to enjoy the green privacy, peace
and tranquil beauty. Neighbors love to
walk in the street together, to walk dogs
and visit with neighbors, without fear of
speeding cars racing for Rhododendron
Drive.
This is the community I invested in
like many others. I love the fact that
there are no sidewalks here and the
community is dark at night, discourag-
ing unwanted behavior outside. We did
not buy property here to watch it turn
into another city atmosphere.
We have a beautifully unique com-
munity here that we share with the
wildlife. People who do not live here
want to change that forever.
I hope this gets your attention. Speak
up for your property rights. The City
Planning Commission and mayor are
rushing this by in hopes no one will
notice until it is too late. Once annexed
into the city, you cannot de-annex.
—Ken Vida
Florence