A Non-County Road, Kenwood Ave costs Residents - But Bug or Feature?

The potholes on the front page yesterday prompted questions about what kind of piece we would be getting. Would it dive into road funding, development standards, and our property tax system? It was begging for a Strong Towns style analysis.

Yesterday's paper

It got part way there.

One of the most important details was buried pretty far into the piece, though: Did the road belong to the City of Salem, a County, or was it a private road? The initial framing of the piece, the photos, headlines, and introduction with epic potholes and fine citizens who struggled with them, suggested a failure in basic government services. Of course they should have a paved road. These were people being neglected, it seemed.

Appearances were deceiving. The photo caption said "Salem," but the street turned out not to be a City street, and not even to be a County road in unincorporated Marion County. It's a kind of near-private street, formally called a "non-county road."

When the homes on the street were built, Marion County allowed developers to opt to not pay to include their street in the county’s roads system. It allowed the developers to sell the houses for lower prices. But it also required homeowners to maintain the road....

The people who live there now aren’t happy that decision was made. They’re paying for it with headaches, car repairs and explanations about how bad their road is.

Marion County Public Works director Brian Nicholas said there are four types of roads in Marion County: private roads, non-county roads, county roads and state highways.

Kenwood Avenue is a non-county road. That means residents have the responsibility to maintain it. Many don’t find that out until after they move in.

So what looked at first like a story about equity and the City of Salem turned out to be something different and more complicated.

Maybe it is not very fair to expect people seeking new homes to have a detailed understanding of the road type, but they are in fact buying or renting homes in unincorporated County areas in part because of lower property taxes or other benefits the relaxed level of County oversight seems to offer. So it should not be completely surprising that some of the infrastructure is "economy class." There is an element of "you get what you pay for" here. This may be in part a failure of the realtor and landlord system with disclosures, not underscoring to new purchasers and renters that neither the City nor the County will maintain the road.

Stories like this sometimes need to be turned inside out. Instead of stories that focus on the plight of individuals, they should be analysis of the systems that enact the hardships, with individual stories as illustrations of the general problem. Sometimes the focus on individuals hides too much. Though individuals are victims of a kind, the problems are funding and policy choices. These are not one-off, isolated instances to be remedied by bureaucrats being more responsible and giving attention to a neglected problem, or to be remedied by charity, but are features of a system that often requires deeper reform. The system might be working as intended, after all, even if we find some of the consequences unpleasant or unfair.

So here are some ideas for follow-up.

What about land use patterns that don't generate sufficient property taxes for maintenance obligations and replacements at ends of lifecycles? The City of Salem is working on a "maintenance" bond right now. They have suggested we have a lot of deferred maintenance, and we need a new bond measure to plug some of those holes. Will the land use changes we are making in Our Salem contribute to a healthier system of municipal funding?

When we think about annexing property into the city, Kenwood Avenue is a postcard instance of costs: The City would become responsible for the road, and the tax base not enough to fund that, so it would require significant subsidy for a small local road from the rest of the city.

So what about County tax systems and County politics that don't fully support neighborhoods but also create expectations for full support? The piece also talks a little about Local Improvement Districts as a solution. These might be worth a closer look.

And do residents now actually enjoy lower housing costs in a legit trade-off for a lousy street, or is there an increment of value being skimmed off and redirected elsewhere? Do the savings pass down to residents? As we struggle with our housing crisis, should we be more tolerant of trade-offs that yield less expensive housing? Our building and development standards are high, and if "cheap" housing is better than tents and tarps, are there areas in which we should consider relaxing standards to support construction of affordable housing? Consider the costs to remodel Yaquina Hall. We're up to nearly $20 million for 52 apartments. That's a lot!

The redevelopment at the former Mushroom Plant is nearby, and maybe there is an interesting comparison to be made there. Or with the difficulties getting the Lone Oak Bridge funded and constructed.

Overall the story is framed up as a hyper-local problem on one small neighborhood street, but that really is a symptom of a system, or multiple systems, and the bigger picture deserves a closer look. There are more dots to be connected!