Response to “fact checking”

In an advertisement in the Gazette Times on Sunday, 11/4/12, Landmark Properties wrote their own “myths” – based on our reasoned and researched arguments – and then presented their own arguments as “fact.”

Do you believe Landmark Properties’ “fact check”?

Landmark’s claim: “As shown in City-approved plans, parking will be provided for every resident plus visitors.”

The only plan that has been released to the public (in the original annexation application) depicts 893 bedrooms and 579 parking spaces.*

I’ve included this issue not to draw attention to the likely parking problems that would accompany this development, but rather to question Landmark’s “fact checking.”

Their plan was NOT approved by the city. When the Planning Commission and then the City Council voted on this issue, they voted on one thing: whether or not to forward the annexation of the land to the voters of Corvallis. They did not vote on a development plan. They did not approve a development plan.

Instead, during the Council’s discussion prior to voting on August 20, 2012, as entered into the minutes* of that meeting, one councilor stated specifically, “forwarding the annexation without endorsement of property development shows support and respect for the community.”

* Documents are available at the Corvallis Public Library. Online access is blocked.

Landmark’s claim: “OSU’s recent ‘State of the University’ report projects steady enrollment growth of 2% to 3% … per year.”

OSU President Ed Ray has since capped enrollment in Corvallis at 28,000, only about 2,000 more students than they have now.

Landmark’s claim: “Landmark Properties will have on-site staff who provide management, maintenance, and security.”

Landmark promises to have “a full-time manager on the site, as well as a ‘courtesy officer’ — an off-duty police officer who would patrol the premises in exchange for a free apartment.” (Gazette Times, 6/1/12)

After reading the latest Gazette-Times articles and reading what people who live in neighborhoods closer to the center of campus have to say, do you think that what Landmark promises will be enough?

Landmark’s claim: “The Sather Annexation will produce an estimated $600,000 in property  taxes annually for the City of Corvallis, school district, and Benton County.”

ANY development of the site will contribute tax revenue. We do not believe this is the right development for Corvallis.

Landmark’s claim: “This large site’s unique location next to campus makes it perfect for student housing.”

The Sather site is perfect for a mix of housing types that meet the needs of all residents of Corvallis.

If you have already voted, consider sharing this post with those you know who haven’t. If you have not voted yet, consider voting “NO” on the Sather Annextion. Thank you!

– MS

The Blog

The latest news on and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: