By Tom Henderson • Staff Writer • 

Council approves plans for subdivision

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .



Sad day for Mcminnville...unless you love sitting in bumper to bumper traffic and enjoying a skyline of apartment buildings all while waiting through multiple cycles of traffic lights.
Happy day for Lake Oswego big money developers. They probably popped a cork and raised a glass.
I really appreciate the two councilors (Mr Garvin and Mr Geary) who had the courage to stand against it. I hope the ones who voted for it fully comprehend what they are doing to the livability of McMinnville.


Next council meeting agenda will have an agenda item.... they'll be voting to replace the dated and quaint name of "McMinnville" with the great, future looking name of "Lil' Beaverton."


I don't think the picture was intended for this particular article. But I do find it surprisingly representative of our city council giving away McMinnville so I hope it stays up.

If this is the way our city "leaders" choose to manage our limited land resources despite significant citizen input, I promise I will not support any Urban Growth Boundary expansion. Citizen involvement is requested, then ignored. No wonder people simply give up.

I understand that the state has requirements. What I don't understand is why McMinnville is being forced into the state mold that is based on Portland and Salem. I believe our department heads need to remember that their paychecks come from the City of McMinnville. They need to listen to what McMinnville wants and then figure out how to make it happen within the parameters set by the state. Their current approach has blessed us with the Baker Creek South in-process build and now they plan to expand that "success" into a duplicate on the other side of Baker Creek Road.

I watched the council meeting online last Tuesday. After the final vote, three of the largest supporters of the 2010 traffic plan admitted that traffic was a concern. So I went back and reread the 1000 plus pages of the application. That's what happens when you're confined to your house. I noticed that the applicant language went from "future transit route" to "POTENTIAL transit route." Just as their language shifted from "affordable" to "attainable" housing. Both transit and affordable were key selling points to the council. What does it say when even the applicant admits they can't fulfill those goals?

I then went through the 2010 traffic study. In the transit chapter, none of the maps show ANY transit routes in the northwest corner. It's the ONLY blank area. But our "leaders" have just made that area the highest density in the city.

Reporter Starla Pointer

You're right, PAO, that photo was meant to go with a story about the school district distributing Chromebooks. Thanks for pointing that out!


You're too quick on the draw. I like it better for this article!

Chris Chenoweth

Thank you Councilors Garvin and Geary for trying to do the right thing. We need more like you.

@PAO When you say that department heads to remember their paychecks come from the City, they do. They follow the direction given by the Council. Without a major change in the makeup of the Council there will be no change in the direction.

As to supporting UGB expansion your position is at conflict with your goals. More land would provide greater flexibility to planners. Less land creates pressure to make more happen with less. We need an increase in the UGB and we need to expose those who are blocking it as being the real source of inflated housing and rental costs.


It's really disheartening to see my City Council vote AGAINST her constituents on the traffic on Baker Creek. it's a huge issue.

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable