Councilman Thomson argues against the state-mandated “climate friendly areas” on Wedneday. (Screen grab from council meeting YouTube video)
As ordered by the state bureaucracy, Albany will have five so-called “climate friendly areas,” but not quite yet. At least one council member thinks it’s a bad idea for Albany.
On Wednesday night the city council voted to advance a slew of code and plan changes to designate the areas, which are intended as places where housing can develop more densely and where a mix of land uses will allow people to meet most of their daily needs without having to get in the car and drive.
Councilman Michael Thomson spoke out against the changes. Since it takes a unanimous council to adopt an ordinance at a single meeting, the climate friendly areas will have to come back for adoption at the next regular meeting April 23.
This attempt to change parts of town over time to more walkable neighborhoods started in 2022 with rules adopted by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. The rules forced Albany and seven other cities or metro areas to designate “climate friendly and equitable communities” by the end of April 2025.
This in turn was in compliance with Gov. Kate Brown’s executive order of 2020 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Planners and consultants have been laboring on this venture for three years. The upshot is that Albany is designating five areas, one in North Albany around Hickory Street, the others downtown and in the east and south ends of the city.
To get the flavor of Wednesday’s discussion, you should watch the YouTube video here.
Thomson objected to the top-down state mandate and said the denser neighborhoods envisioned by state officials are not what he wants for Albany.
Other councilors and the mayor variously said Albany has to change with the times, has to pepare for growth, should encourage a supermarket around 53rd Avenue, and in any case has to obey state law.
Thomson countered that some cities have taken the state to court.
Councilwoman Marilyn Smith said nothing much is likely to change as a result of the pending code changes. She pointed out that it’s the private market, not the city, that determines whether and where groceries or houses are built.
She’s right, or course, which raises the question why state and local officials would spend who knows how much money and countless hours over three years to work up changes in regulations that won’t make much difference for a very long time, if ever.
People should have been wary of this planning exercise at the start. The nomenclature itself is infantile.
“Climate friendly areas?” An area can’t be friendly, and certainly not friendly to a thing like climate. That’s not how the language works. (hh)
The map prepared by the city shows the planned “climate friendly areas” in different parts of Albany.
I live in Zone A. Our biggest problem is parking. None of this is going to make my neighborhood better, especially since ms brown has done away with requiring parking be considered by builders.
Councilman Thomson…keep voting this nonsense DOWN…just say NO. Thank you
Stand your ground councilman Thomson by not giving into this! This will destroy our communities!
This reminds me of the Downtown 2000 project that my dad was involved in during the early 70s that was an attempt by city leaders and business people to re-imagine downtown Albany by turning Broadalbin into a pedestrian mall and other zoning changes to encourage more residences in the downtown area. Money was spent on that planning and the models shown to the public. Was it too much money? Hard to say. Some of it actually did come to pass as American preferences in lifestyle caught up with the urban planners’ dreams. Which one comes first? Hard to say. It is the old “does life imitate art or does art imitate life?” argument. I agree, that if an idea has merit, a City Council does not need to front-run it.. Just work with developers on zoning changes on an ad hoc basis to meet changes in demand.
Our family watched the city council meeting last night. My kiddos pointed out that we, at one time were the future that their grandparents worked for. There was nothing said about improving the city for the residents that live here now. So we are expected to pay for the cities future plans for their kiddos, while we are deprived of the future our families worked for and expected us to have. To the comments about Albany not knowing what real density is, it is true. We know enough not to want the crime, traffic and the bad attitudes of a dense city. The United states is full of smaller cities that are successful, progressive and well managed. Bigger does not make a city better, the people in the community make it a place worth living. My kiddos want something better for their kiddos than what they will get from a city that does not care about what they need to be successful. My kiddos will not come back here to be disrespected and work hard for others to live better than they do.
Does it make sense to put zone D and zone E so close to each other? I would hardly consider zone E to be on the south end of Albany. When we moved to the subdivision off of 53 in the early 2000’s, there was supposed to be shopping and fuel stations coming to the area across the railroad tracks. Never appeared. Now there are hundreds of homes and cars that must drive to the center of town to shop. That was before several hundred more homes were built at Ellingson and Columbus. Can’t we do better? Keep up the good work Counselman Thomson.
“When we moved to the subdivision off of 53 in the early 2000’s, there was supposed to be shopping and fuel stations coming to the area across the railroad tracks. Never appeared.”
Take a look at the South Albany Area Plan from early 2013.
( https://albanyoregon.gov/planning/codes-and-plans/south-albany-area-plan )
See if it meshes with your view of what could be. That said, and as good as these are, there’s nothing that can mandate a developer to adhere to them as envisioned.
Are we looking down the road to C 40 cities which is the plan by the government?
Until the state foots the bill, tell them to go to HELL!
Given that our current president was more than likely involved in massive Insider Trading related to his “Pump & Dump” tariff scheme, it seems silly to be concerned about this petty matter. The zones depicted on the map are already the most populated. As Homo Sapiens are much like lemmings, the likelihood is that even more people will be attracted to those same denser areas.
The purpose of the State legislation and the ensuing City regulatory efforts is to perhaps make the inevitable a bit more manageable, versus the chaos of Urban Planning in your average 3rd World country. The Orange god-king is currently attempting to turn America into one of those 3rd World countries. Perhaps the angst by Councilor Thompson would be better directed at a real threat to Albany … the Orange god-king.
Your TDS fits well with the mental dysphoria.
here we go again. involved in massive insider trading. we just went thru 4+ years of trying to get trump any way possible. no holds barred. everything failed, miserably. everything. now its massive insider trading. with no proof, absolutely zero proof of it. i cant imagine what it will be next. saddle up leftists… this ride is could be longer than ya thought. im putting my bet on trump winning again in 2028. plenty of people are saying he cant run again. those are the same people who said he would not win in 2024. its get on the maga wagon, or get run over by it. your choice for the next 4 to 8 years.
I’ll suggest it will be a [very] bumpy ride. Thankfully, we have an AG with backbone….
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2025/04/oregons-top-lawyer-takes-on-trump-on-stage-and-in-court.html
So he’s sued Trump 13 times. How’s that working out? What a waste of our tax money.
“How’s that working out?” Overall, pretty well…:
“We have 23 Democratic attorneys general in America today who are fighting like hell to make sure that we protect and preserve this beautiful, precious, irreplaceable democracy of ours, and we are not going to stop until the job is done,” Mayes said.
“We’re not going to win every single one of these,” Mayes said. “But you show me someone who never loses, and I’ll show you someone who isn’t trying hard enough.”
At the current rate, Rayfield is on track to sue the Trump administration about 190 times before his term ends.
During Trump’s first term, Democratic attorney generals ultimately won roughly 80% of lawsuits against the president and his administration, Mayes and Rayfield said.
“I did not run for office so that I could sue Donald Trump,” Rayfield told reporters before the town hall. “But this is where we’re at, with an unconstitutional and often illegal presidency that seems hell bent on destroying 250 years of American government.”
“At the current rate, Rayfield is on track to sue the Trump administration about 190 times before his term ends.”
Obvious insanity with our tax dollars being wasted.
And there is NO proof, absolutely zero proof………………. and yet it is constantly said like there was by the wacky left.
I urge you to review the state requirements on climate friendly areas contained in OAR 660-012-0310 to 0320. Here’s a link: https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Documents/TPR_2022.pdf I printed out the 5 pages of regulations and am going through it marking with a hi-lighter. Fortunately, we have two weeks before the next city council meeting – where this will be approved. :(
This just points out that again, the state is stripping the authority of cities to regulate their zoning and growth. It makes you wonder why we have cities? Just leave everything up to the state to regulate. (Not a good idea).
Buckle up Albany – it’s going to be a long bumpy ride. My wife and I moved here two years ago from Issaquah, WA located in King County. We have seen this thing before. There is always a “transportation improvement plan”, an “urban village plan” or a “livable walkable city plan” that always starts the thing off. In Oregon it seems to be an environmental friendly plan. It’s all the same thing. End game is to get the city to make false choices about where higher density housing should go while making current local residents pay for the infrastructure that will be needed for the people that don’t live here yet. Yes, we moved here to enjoy the small town charm of Albany by investing in an older home (built in 1973) and fixing it up to bring it current. That’s different than expecting a whole bunch of infrastructure being built where none yet exists. Who is going to pay for that? There is also no guaranty that a developer is going to take advantage of these tax give aways (because they will always include an affordable housing element). Just be glad you are not having to pay for light rail – I would have had to make 30 years of payments on that before I ever saw a train from Seattle, and likely would have been pushing up daisies before I’d ever get a ride in the first place. My advice – plan for the future, think about the needs of people and the environment, and be flexible – and don’t make people who live here now pay for people who don’t live here yet.
Hear, hear!
sued trump 13x. and has yet to earn a nickname. ….maybe someday.
Kate Brown’s order reminds me of Stalin’s Magnitogorsk without the steel mill.
Councilman Thomson deserves to be commended. Thank you sir!
When I was a kid in the 70s I lived in west Albany and my neighborhood had a full grocery store ( Jim’s) and a full drug store (stebbins) on the corner of 9th and elm. Plus Safeway on queen & pacific. Very climate friendly as well could walk or bike to all of them. All 3 are gone.