For status updates, visit lucyburns.org.
Ballotpedia's coverage of elections held on March 3, 2015, was limited. Select races were covered live, and all results will be added once the merger is complete.
Clackamas County Urban Renewal District Creation Local Question (November 2011)
Though this measure was approved, it received fewer votes that the County wide question so it will not be implemented in the county.
This measure sought to require a local vote if the County sought to create an urban renewal district in the unincorporated areas of the county. This measure was a counter measure to a petitioned measure, Clackamas County Urban Renewal District Creation Question, which would require a county wide vote for a district to be created. This measure was placed on the ballot by the County commission which sought to allow only those who would be in the proposed district to vote on its creation. The commission placed this on the ballot on the last day before the November election deadline.
A Clackamas County Circuit Judge decided to change this measure's title and question text which will appear on the ballot because it was thought that the title and text were confusing for residents. The judge noted that it did not meet the statutory requirements in that it did not identify the measure with an accurate description to voters. The decision by the judge cannot be appealed.
|Clackamas County Urban Renewal District Creation Local Question|
Those in favor of this measure, supported a local question rather than the counter measure which would require a county wide vote. Proponents noted that a local vote was favorable so that those smaller communities and unincorporated areas would have a better chance or getting urban renewal plans approved on a local level rather than have the entire county vote on the issue. Proponents also noted that a fair amount of jobs are created with urban renewal programs, which help the communities it aims to improve.
The Oregonian had given its support behind this measure, noting that the local option was preferred to the county wide vote on potential urban renewal plans. They noted that the county is largely unincorporated, so local votes in the designated areas would have been more effective and would have allowed development where it was needed most.
Text of measure
The question on the ballot:
|Measure 3-388: Shall new or substantially amended urban renewal plans require the approval of those voters residing within the plan area boundaries?|
- Clackamas Review, "Ballot on tap in Clackamas County jobs forum," October 5, 2011
- Clackamas Review, "Urban renewal makes November ballot, again," September 28, 2011
- Portland Business Journal, "Clackamas prepares for renewal vote," September 7, 2011
- Oregon Public Broadcasting, "Clackamas Officials Propose Alternative Urban Renewal Measure," September 6, 2011
- Oregon City News, "Clackamas County commissioners place competing urban renewal measure on ballot, pledge to not fund Portland-Milwaukie light rail with urban renewal," September 8, 2011
- The Oregonian, "Judge changes 'potentially confusing and misleading' title of Clackamas County urban renewal measure," September 22, 2011
- Lake Oswego Review, "Measure 3-388 is by far the better choice for Clackamas voters," October 13, 2011
- The Oregonian, "The right choice for growth," October 16, 2011
- Clackamas County Elections, November Ballot Measures
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.