Subject: Is there a practical way to put an ultimate limit on growth in a community?

I have found myself involved in the planning process in my county, here in Oregon.

In this state there are planning laws, which were designed to allow growth to occur in a "desirable" way. Yet, there is no system in the process for allowing a community to choose whether or not to put an ultimate cap on its size.

Virtually everyone I talk to here agrees that we don't want our beautiful area to grow so much that it ends up losing the things we all moved here for - beautiful forests and rivers, small town atmospher, slower paced lifestyle, and so forth. No one I've talked to wants this place to become "another San Jose".

We also are virtually clueless in regards to the amount of groundwater available for future needs, as we have a geologically very complex situation here. But it is generally agreed that water is pretty limited.

Few people are in favor of government intervention in our lives. It's a bit of a paradox.

Assuming we do opt to put a growth cap in place, how are we to minimize hardship to those who are, seemingly, dependent on growth for their income, e.g. builders, realtors, etc?

Anyone have any experience with this type of situation, or any suggestions?

I suspect it will be very hard to reach any type of concensus on this issue, in which case, I'll eventually be inclined move away to a smaller community, but I really don't want to do so; I've been here for twenty-five years, and I love it.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), July 14, 2000

Answers

A little ironic that it is you who now has to contemplate this problem. The peope you mentionioned that depend on growth for income are not an asset to your community. I never met an honest developer or realtor--so, if they starved to death it is no loss to anyone. Eventully you'll get tired of running and stand and fight. Concensus is such an ugly word as it's true definition is--we conspired together to screw you. One day I hope you will learn that each man must wage his own war with life--alone and with inspired pride and dignity. You have heard the solution we use in our county and you'll either do that in the end --or move.

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), July 14, 2000.

A little ironic that it is you who now has to contemplate this problem. The people you mentioned that depend on growth for income are not an asset to your community. I never met an honest developer or realtor--so, if they starved to death it is no loss to anyone. Eventully you'll get tired of running and stand and fight. Concensus is such an ugly word as it's true definition is--we conspired together to screw you. One day I hope you will learn that each man must wage his own war with life--alone and with inspired pride and dignity. You have heard the solution we use in our county and you'll either do that in the end --or move.

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), July 14, 2000.

Joe,

The area I live in is facing some of the same tensions and problems your area is relating to growth. Here sewer lines and improved water mains allow for high density development. The county and township require at least an acre to build on for a house with a septic system, if sewer lines are avialable a developer will cram 6 houses to the acre. So we try to fight sewer improvements. The township and county have looked at changing zoning to require at least 3 acres per house, this is of course opposed by the developers and real estate agents. One idea being floated now is a county wide tax on new housing, $500.00 per $100,000 of house value paid one time when the house is built with half the tax going to the schools and half to conservation/agriculture easements or parkland. Again there is opposition to this but it might have enough support to overcome the developers. I like the idea of putting a one-time tax on new housing and helping to fund the schools as that puts the shool funding burden more where it ought to be, on the newcomers bringing in their kids, rather than on the long-time residents paying property taxes (rasied twice in the past tens years to support school expansion for the new families moving into the new subdivisions) Another option that helps to preserve the township from aggresive annexation by cities is to require any developer, when he applies for rezoning from agriculture to planned subdivision, to put a restriction on all deeds that the tracts will forever remain in the township and may not be annexed. The trustees love this and while it does not stop the growth it at least holds the cities at bay. Like you I love where I'm at but I'll move if the development gets much closer.

Good luck

Bob

-- Robert (STBARB@usa.net), July 14, 2000.

Controlled growth???? Does not exist imho...Just once, I would like to see a town say "enough"...there will be no new houses, no new commercial buildings...if you want to live here, buy a home from someone who is moving away..if you want a business here, buy a building already built..wait your turn....Let the realtors and developers make a living elsewhere or find something else to do...Your town can do this if you value your community...or try to satisfy everyone else and have zip in 10 years or less... tell your fellow townspeople to take a GOOD look at Lancaster,PA, or Dutchneck, New Jersey...a mere 15 years ago, land was beautiful, everyone knew one another,and there were REAL farms everywhere..now there are Walmarts and traffic, and sky high taxes and overcrowded schools,and folks lock their doors during the day..never mind at night...Blink your eyes and it's done...God bless

-- Lesley (martchas@gateway.net), July 14, 2000.

Hi Jumpoff Joe, You must be close to Merlin and all the stuff that is going on over there right now. Here in tiny Selma the only thing of importance was the elementary school, and they closed it on us. Like Merlin. Good luck in keeping your area free of developments. Wish I could be of help. Helen Walker, Selma OR

-- Helen (bluechicken@wildbearnet.net), July 14, 2000.

jumpoff joe--where, we are in Ks. we have small communities dieing!!!!! And the locals don't want anything--so, they have lost 5 businesses since we have lived here in 7 years! We are even going to have our post office window cut back to 4 hours a day, then it will be closeing next! The bank closed , the station & tow truck service closed. We started a country store in our warehouse & we had so much harrassment, 4-sale signs put in front of our house, vandalism, & stealing we closed after 1 year, & are no longer open to the public! There is nothing left!!!! Most of the homes are now rented by people who don't work & or care or keep up anything--Rules & laws don't apply here!! If we really told people what went on here they wouldn't believe us!!!!! We are buying up all the properties that come up for sale & are cleaning them up!!! As most we have bought should not have, had anyone liveing in them to begin with--we are tearing them down & burning them--& planting orchards, etc. anything to get rid of the dope sellers, etc. But, the area doesn't want anyone to start a business-as it brings more people into town that hold these people accountable for the laws they break! If, we told you about our city council & what has gone on here since we have lived here no one would believe us--they would say that doesn't go on in this world! So, I see either you have growth of some form or you have "DEATH" & people who have no respect for anyone or thing--& want the rest of the world to live DOWN to their standards. I can understand, that tooooo much growth is as big of a problem, as we face with no change except DEATH! And all the people seem to want this area to look like heck & no one work, or care about anything or anyone except to use them. We have an 1800's stone mill as you enter our town --there are some nice homes--& some really good people --there could be so much here & it still keep its small town appeal--but they have given up the fight against the uneducated people who have no interest or respect for anyone or anything!We have more drunks & welfare than anything else! God is building a bible preaching, salvation preaching church here!! There was a church, that a half a dozen warmed the pews in, before this last year--most of the ones who don't want any change & their unlawful ways, hate this church & what God is doing here--& are doing all they can to distroy it also--I can understand where you are comming from---but no change & growth can be worse!!!! Thanks for listening to me--Sonda in Ks.

-- Sonda (sgbruce@birch.net), July 14, 2000.

Just my thoughts on this but if you allowed no new houses or business how would you provide for the children of the towns residents when they are old enought to start working and raising a family? Most of the younger people don't want anything to do with small towns now and if you eliminate the housing and jobs they will all leave and small towns will become extinc(?)......................JAY

-- JAY (JAY@townsqr.com), July 14, 2000.

Jay, you just hit the nail on the head as to what has happened in our rural areas of Kansas!!!!!!! I want a future for our youth, & my Grandchildren--& what, we see in all of the small towns around us is DEATH--& they complain after they run off the businesses that they have to drive 100 miles to buy anything!!! And why do all of our youth leave as soon as they get out of school?? I'll get off my soap box!!! I hope I never get so old I no longer care about the future of our children. Our small town is on it's last leg --the city council is trying to kill it---but I see a Church growing & I see many young children here yet---so I'm not about to give up the fight! Sonda in Ks.

-- Sonda (sgbruce@birch.net), July 14, 2000.

Its like a question the indians probably had as they and their way of life kept getting pushed West.

The answer is no. You can't do anything meaningful about it. You can slow things up for awhile but the change is inevitable. Make a "reservation". Many folks over 50 may have already lived through this once.

Whether to fight of suffer the slings and arrows is a personal decision. I would move. The outcome is inevitable and the very way of life desired is lost when you have to fight the incoming hordes who also want a piece of the pie. For me, its better to find peace and enjoyment in a place not yet coveted. The trick is to find enjoyment in that life and place that nobody wants yet.

-- charles (clb@watervalley.net), July 15, 2000.

One way my parents' town has controlled the suburban sprawl has been through the town buying the developement rights. I hope I can explain this right - the town buys the development rights from the owner of the property, and the owner and all future owners CANNOT sell their land to developers. They can continue farming, can build houses of their own on the land, sell pieces to family members - just can't develope it. Some farmers have made a million or more on this sale - and they still own their property!

If the town fathers of the small communities would actually sit down and calculate how much $$$ the housing developements would use over the course of, say, 20 years (with sewer,school costs, garbage, street maintanance, yadda yadda yadda), they would find that they could actually SAVE money by buying the rights of the large tracts of land - and encouraging farmers to stay in the business.

I get most of this info when talking to my Dad. If you have any questions, email me and I'll see if my father'll get me some reference info.

Up here in the Northeast, in CT, we few homesteaders value what little land we have, and envy those of you with more than an acre. Good luck with your travails with your town. Judi

-- Judi (ddecaro@snet.net), July 15, 2000.

Dear Joe, It really is a balancing act-keeping the town's economy alive but still retain the small town attributes. I live in a lovely and lively town of 24,000. Their are woods and streams running right through the middle of town. The way the town did it was to buy the land and run it as a natural "park". It has kept downtown growth limited. But they also have a group that focuses on keeping our downtown alive-lots of little niche shops and such. The rest of town growth has moved south of town. This allows the town to have the jobs that are needed to keep the young people here. Its a comprimise but it has really worked for this town. There are plenty of jobs but still a small town feel. Renee'

-- Renee' Madden (RM6PACK@aol.com), July 15, 2000.

This is the way I feel about this. I live in California where it seems the greater the steps taken to curb growth the more the area grows. I think the way to handle this is tostay out of people's business as much as possible. Give property rights back to the people and develop positive incentives for farming. It is very interesting that States with the least constraints on property are also those with the least growth overall. This should be a hint. If people actually want farmers to stay in business and slower growth the secret is making it easy to farm. The problem I have with growth concious folks is that they want to prevent anyone else from having what they have. They want to have their farm, but don't want anyone else to have that country lifestyle too. This to me is wrong. The key here is to remove constraints from farmers trying to eek out a living and make it difficult for tract homes to be built. The thing is in making it difficult for tracts to be built, farmers who want to give a piece of land to their family member shouldn't be prevented from doing so. The property I rent is 142 acres and has two mobiles on it because the county wouldn't allow the owners to split the parcel with their son. In my opinion this is a travesty. Growth control is just a way to artificially boost property values for those who have and deny those who haven't the right to ever have anything but government subsidized housing. The simple truth is that the measures designed to limit growth also 9 times out of 10 make poor people poorer, by not allowing them to put a roof over thair head. Then the government is called in to rescue those people who were kept from achieving their dreams by people who wanted their own security at the expense of other's. In Kern county California it currently costs about $3000 before you can even stick a shovel in the ground. Has this curbed growth? Absolutely not! It just means that those who can afford to pay it get a home and those who need one the worst don't! I thank God for States like Oklahoma and Missouri that realize that freedom is by far the best solution to growth. At least there I can have a chance to own and build a home. Isn't that what homesteading is all about? Creating an atmosphere of many small farms all over America providing for their own needs and helping out their communities by getting people off the grocery store habit? How can that happen if homesteaders can't even build their homesteads? It seems to me most liberals run around screaming how they love the poor man, but then deny the poor man a roof over his head of his own. I say, yeah right!

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), July 15, 2000.

Here in Westchester Cty, NY. We have the "Greenway Program", and several others, which provide funds for local towns to buy up open space-especially along the Hudson River. Small 'pocket' parks, trails, and huge tracks of land have been made available to the public through these programs. Access to the river here is a primary concern, as developers were buying all the land for condo's and marinas, limiting access to those of us who grew up here. Also, as this is an 'old money' area, an unbelievable number of residents with 5 to 100 acres, leave their properties to educational centers, and the like. The other program that is interesting involves affordable housing. Sure Mr. Builder, you can build 10 million dollars homes on this track, but, first you must build 20 affordable housing units-on that track. First pick, thru a lottery-goes to teachers, police, fire and other civil servants. So far so good-sorta. The area is still being built far and above the capacity of the infrastructure. The water mains break, the sewer system must be expanded, the roads repaved-all of that equals jobs for those of us who have made our home here. Give and take. Harlem was a cornfield, once.

-- Kathy (catfish@bestweb.net), July 15, 2000.

THe easiest way to keep out the developers is to make your area less profitable. In our area, mandating a minimum of 5 acres per lot pretty much stops developers cold. You can also have minimum road frontage (200ft in our case). This still allows farmers to sell of frontage for profit, but doesnt allow developers to buy large farms and gut it for a subdivision. Our area has a farm preservation act on the books to stop wholesale sell off of land. Curring zoning board is working on a no land split for 5 years after purchase clause also to keep the burbs from taking the farm land. I am about 50 miles from a big city and were having problems. Farmers closer in are all been exterminated because they didnt have the zoning to help.

-- Gary (gws@redbird.net), July 17, 2000.

Sorry, Joel, I don't exactly understand what you're trying to say here. But offhand, I'd say you're not bringing all that much to the discussion. Your remarks are very negative and hopeless sounding. What do you find ironic? If you've never met an honest developer or realtor, you have led a very sheltered life. Just because a person has a different outlook (such as making money by building houses) does not make him dishonest. This is one reason I'm interested in concensus. I dont' believe I have the right to singlehandedly decide the future of my community. If the CONSENSUS is to continuing to grow until it's another giant, polluted mess, I won't try to change it; I'll relocate to somewhere with a more enlightened attitude. Apparently, you have a problem with this. I'm sorry you don't like the word "consensus"; I was assuming that it meant "general agreement". Thanks for informing me that there is another meaning, which you find preferable.

Robert, I too like the idea of putting a one-time tax on new housing and helping to fund the schools as that puts the shool funding burden more where it ought to be, on the newcomers bringing in their kids. This would also help fund the cost of all the other infrastructure costs, e.g. roads, fire departments, police, hospitals, water treatment plants, sewer plants, etc. I appreciate your response; I have just begun to investigate capping growth in addition to controlling it. The state of Oregon, where I live, just passed some new regulations, which effectively make five acres the minimum size for any new building lot outside a city. This will help, but not cure, the suburban sprawl in some areas, but still won't affect the livability of the rural areas completely, as we are still affected by growth in the cities.

Lesley, this (ust once, I would like to see a town say "enough"...there will be no new houses, no new commercial buildings...if you want to live here, buy a home from someone who is moving away..if you want a business here, buy a building already built..wait your turn..) is EXACTLY what I'm interested in having happen. But I want to do it in a careful way, trying to enable the change to take place with as little negative effects as possible. There is a real danger of causing big problems by doing this at all, much less without planning for ways to ease the pain.

Hello, Helen. Yes, I'm near Merlin. Fortunately, I'm east of I-5, so I am not going to be swept into the scam that's going on in that area-- at least not in the near future. I'm just looking at where we want to be here in JoCo in the future. I've lived here for 25 years, and have seen enough changes to know that I don't want to see what's happened over the last 25 years continue for another twenty-five.

Sonda, I'm sorry to hear about the sad state of affairs where you live. I assure you that my interest in capping growth has nothing to do with drugs! You say, " I can understand, that tooooo much growth is as big of a problem..." That's my point, Sondra--too much growth. Any growth, if allowed to continue long enough, is too much growth.

Jay, you are raising a valid point. I have considered this, and while I don't have all the answers (which is why I am asking for help), I did come to the conclusion that to continued growth in order to assure future housing for the children when they grow up may defeat the whole purpose of looking out for our children's future if the community becomes so crowded and unlivable that the kids don't even want to live there! The issue of housing for our children's future use gets into the whole issue of population. If we are someday able to stabilize our population, then we won't NEED more and more housing for our kids.

Sonda, the children are one of the main reasons I'm interested in preserving the livability of my community. I'm not the one who will live long enough to see my community after it's grown to some ridiculous size.

Charles, your suggestion has a lot of appeal. It would definitely be the easiest path for me (and others who want a nice place to live and raise our kids and grandkids) to take. I suspect that it will ultimately be the path I am forced to take, because I have doubts about how many of the folks in my area are willing to look at the long term impacts of our continued growth. If I am unsuccessful in my attempt get a group forum and a consensus, I'll just sell everything (for a small fortune, I expect, as the prices are rising very fast around here), and move farther out in the boonies. But I don't want to give up before I've even tried. Several of our friends have already started looking into a group retirement home, to be called "Purple Haze Retirment Center". The idea is a communal type of living, and the site would be far from the nearest city. Again, for me and my family, this would be a last resort, as we have become very established in this community, and hate to start over somewhere else.

Judi, thank you! I'm very interested in more information about this. Although I'm not sure that allowing someone to build houses on their own land is different than "developing" it. It's an approach I was just talking to onw of my neighbors about, in a slightly different form.

Renee, this is another interesting approach, although it does not cap growth, but rather seems to be putting growth somewhere else--south of town. This may be a compromise that would be workable in some instances, if an outright cap does not work. In my (nearby) town, the "powers that be" refused to take one of the last pieces of land available on the river, which was already owned by the city, and expand the park. They want to "develop" it as businesses or subdivisions. Blech!

Little bit, you say, " It is very interesting that States with the least constraints on property are also those with the least growth overall. This should be a hint" This appears to me to be false logic--post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The reason the states with the least constraints on property may be the ones with the least growth NOT because they have the least constraints, but rather because they don't NEED constraints, because there is not as much population pressure, for other reasons. You also say, " The problem I have with growth concious folks is that they want to prevent anyone else from having what they have. They want to have their farm, but don't want anyone else to have that country lifestyle too" I used to agree with that sentiment, but if we follow the direction which this leads to--namely, no limits to growth--there is no way to ever protect our communities from overdevelopment. I've since come to embrace the philosophy of a local activist: anyone who lives anywhere should have a right to say, "enough"! If you want to live in a community which refuses to control its growth, fine; go live there. But we, the people who live here, have the right, and the responsibility, to change those things which we beliive need changing.You mention Kern County costing $3000 before you can even stick a shovel in the ground. Let me tell you something; this is CHEAP out here on the west coast. In the L.A. area, where there are NO GROWTH LIMITS, it generally costs over $30,000 for all the reports,studies, and permits before breaking ground for a single family residence! LA is either the largest metropolitan area, or second largest, in the US. Therefore, I submit that the lack of growth limits has surely not protected the poor folks' ability to own a house! Huge cities have huge problems, which require huge amounts of money to even ATTEMPT to remedy.

Thanks for sharing your town's experiences, Kathy. You mention that the growth far exceeds the infrastructure capacity. This reminds me of one challenge we face here: water supply. We have a very finite supply of water out here in ther west, and this is true where I live. Virtually all the water in the rural areas is groundwater. And we have a very complicated geologic situation here. Lots and lots of different rock types, soil typse, and such, all mixed up together. So it is damned near impossible to do a study to determine how much water we have as a county. It's hard to even analyze the aquifer for a proposed new subdivision accurately, much less the whole county. We DO know that there are already areas experiencing shortages. I for one, don't want to keep allowing more and more development until such a time as we have a drought which permanently damages some of our aquifers. You say, " The water mains break, the sewer system must be expanded, the roads repaved-all of that equals jobs for those of us who have made our home here". By the way, are you saying that broken water mains, warn out sewer systems, and deteriorating pavement should be looked at as an ASSET? I don't understand.

Gary, it sounds like your area is at least working for a solution. Putting some of these rules into effect should solve a lot of the problems I'm talking about here. We also have a five acre minimum which was recently legislated state wide. This will, eventually, solve the population pressure on the VERY rural lands, once all the existing lots have been built on, assuming the law doesnt get changed in the meantime. But the cities are still allowed to grow and grow, with rezoning allowing the rural lands to get turned into cities. Has your area put a limit on the outward expansion of the cities? I'd sure like to hear about it if it has.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), July 17, 2000.

To JumpoffJoe, To clarify, No. Watermain breaks, new sewer lines, and road repaving (over cobblestone- I might add), are NOT an asset. I concede to contrary statements here, but, as long as the towns & cities are going to allow these excessive uses of land, 'cluster developments', wetland 'special permits', zoning 'allowences',etc. We might as well "ride the tide." Get the work, while the work is good- then move on. I've had my share of town board meetings, fighting the mighty developer-it ain't pretty, and best left to the experts. Like the programs I mentioned in my previous post. Harlem is no longer a cornfield. Westchester is no longer 'gentleman farmers', Dutchess is not horse country, Ulster is not the milk of NY. Times change. I hate see it, you hate to see it, but unless we're prepared to buy it all up, we can't change it.

-- Kathy (catfish@bestweb.net), July 18, 2000.

I did not have time to read all of the posts, so I apologize if this is redundant. From my experience, dividing the land into the larger parcels of say 3 to 5 acres, only encourages the wealthier buyers to move into an area. They have the money to buy & build large on that size lot and are often willing to commute a good distance to live on such a place. That can really change the "feel" of a rural area. My two cents. Jean

-- Jean (schiszik@tbcnet.com), July 19, 2000.

Kathy, I guess my county's version of cluster housing is keeping almost all new development inside he "urban growth boundary", which is an area a couple of miles wide around the existing cities, which are slated for later annexation. There are pros and cons to this, for instance, it's driving the prices of rural land through the roof. I've already got enough land for myself, my kids who live next door, and any other relatives who would ever want to live here, so I'm not affected monetarily (there is also a cap on assessed value and tax rate, so we ruralites aren't getting taxed more and more as values go up. On the other hand, I feel for people who want to buy land here. I guess we'll be seeing more and more wealthy folks out here, and the others will have to stay in town, or move to a state which hasn't put these restrictions into place yet.

You may be right; I may give up on this project of protecting the community from overdevelopment. I'm fortunate that our planning department has at least similar goals to mine. I guess I haven't yet attended enough meetings to get frustrated with the process. I hope that I, and others, will have the energy and power to do something positive, though; otherwise, I don't have much hope for humankind.

Jean, not so redundant. I agree, the larger lots are encouraging the gentrification of the rural areas. For myself, though, I'd rather have ten neighbors on five acre lots than forty neighbor

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoffjoe@yahoo.com), July 19, 2000.

I am in a situation where i rent a room from a woman whose house is on five acres. we live on a dirt road in an area that is a little "country" in the city. Several years ago it was annexed that all of the properties on this road could not be broken into anything smaller than 5 acres(community well). two of the properties were never developed. in the last month both of those properties have been bulldozed and are having million dollar homes built on them. the lady i rent from is up in arms because they are destroying our area. my comment was that someone had to do the same thing to her property for her to live here.(she failed to see the humor in this). to make a long story short the neighbors stopped communicating with each other a long time ago and now they are paying the price. stay informed about what is happening around you before it is too late. on another note i believe that growth is a fine line of comprimise. you have to let a little growth in but also preserve what you value. unfortunately elected officials don't always have our interests in mind.

-- Amber (ambrosia75@wa.freei.net), July 19, 2000.

Amber-unfortunatly, elected officials 'own' what they are elected to 'protect', conflict of incest, oops interest.

-- Kathy (catfish@bestweb.net), July 20, 2000.

Kathy- Your statement is so true. there are many elected officials who start out with the best intentions but get corrupted along the way.

-- Amber (ambrosia75@wa.freei.net), July 21, 2000.

Oops, what I was trying to say was, For myself, though, I'd rather have one rich neighbor on a five acre lot than forty "regular" neighbors on the same five acres, on 1/8 acres apiec

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoffjoe@yahoo.com), July 24, 2000.

Hi Joe,

Sorry to post so late. We often visit friends in Cave Junction, and can see all the growth in Grants Pass and beyond. I'm with you--would rather have one neighbor with big house than a bunch of neighbors on all sides.

Real Estate people, builders and so on will not "starve" if growth is stopped, there just will be fewer of them--mostly the honest ones. There will always be houses/businesses to sell, and people eventually have to rebuild, or neighborhoods get "gentrified"--I think in the four stages of a neighbood it is called "rebirth". Look at what is happening in San Francisco and other large cities.

I think the key is minimum lot sizes and SERIOUS impact fees for new development. Where we live, apartments are assessed less for these fees, which I think is unfair because (for example) kids affect school overcrowding regardless of where they live. 4 kids in a house, or 4 kids in an apartment, what's the difference to the school? The idea about buying development rights is also a very good one, but most cities/counties won't touch it unless they are wealthy. Look at all the problems in the Columbia Gorge with that.

Seems your best bet would be to get a celebrity of some sort to move to the area, lol. Look at what Clint Eastwood has done for Carmel. Nice place to visit, but unless you're already there you can't afford to move in!

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 12, 2001.