Oregon land use law turns 40

| Print |  Email
Articles - September 2013
Monday, August 19, 2013
0913 LandFutures 02
Oregon's land-use laws have limited sprawling housing developments while preserving farmland.

Whether one supports or is skeptical of Oregon’s land-use system, it remains unique. “It’s truly radical in the national picture,” says David Oates, author of the 2006 book City Limits: Walking Portland’s Boundary. The best evidence, of course, is how Portland differs substantially from virtually any other large American city west of the Mississippi. It’s what enticed Oates to move here two decades ago from Los Angeles. “The contrast” between dense, pedestrian-friendly Portland and the sprawling car culture of Southern California, he says, “is in front of your eyes every single day.”

Oates cites a wave of urban-infill projects that have turned vacant lots and destitute inner-city neighborhoods into a metropolis the New York Times and countless other media — not to mention thousands of educated creative-class workers for a range of industries — can’t get enough of.

Rural land benefits just as much, supporters argue. “When you look at the health and vitality of cities in Oregon and its farmland, from Ashland to Portland, Senate Bill 100 had a lot to do with that,” says Ryan Deckert, president of the Oregon Business Association. “A well-planned city you can enjoy and appreciate makes a huge difference to a corporation. We see both sides of it, be it the health of a vineyard or a burgeoning software industry.”

Deckert cites a recent private dinner in Portland with the American head of a major foreign automaker who was scouting the state for future development. “They like Oregon because we seem to have thought ahead.”

The thinking ahead got its start in the 1960s, when Gov. McCall led a growing bipartisan and urban-rural consensus against what he called “sagebrush subdivisions” and “coastal condo-mania.” Senate Bill 100 was passed on May 29, 1973, after a long public-outreach process, culminating in the creation of the state Land Conservation and Development Commission to oversee creation of local urban-growth boundaries. And once ballot measures calling for repeal of Senate Bill 100 were defeated in 1976 and 1978, every Oregon municipality was required to have comprehensive plans and growth boundaries in place by 1986.

The desire for middle ground struck again in 2000, when disgruntled private-property owners, many of whom had seen their land devalued and its development restricted, struck back again. Voters approved Ballot Measure 7, calling for landowners to be compensated when government regulation caused devaluation. The Oregon Supreme Court overturned the measure on a constitutional technicality, but in 2004, voters approved Ballot Measure 37, which not only called for property owners to receive compensation when a land-use regulation was enacted after their purchase, but also allowed local governments to instead roll back zoning regulations.

Then came a compromise that seems to have held. As local governments became overwhelmed with Measure 37 claims, the legislature referred Measure 49 to voters with successful passage in 2007. Measure 49 terminated Measure 37 claims but provided an allowance of up to three additional housing units per claim.

“I think 49 has settled [those problems],” says David Hunnicutt, president of Oregonians In Action, the property-rights group that spearheaded Measure 37. The larger problem, he says, is a one-size-fits-all approach that favors urban needs over rural ones. “The idea of Senate Bill 100 was we were going to create a state system and a state agency to oversee local planning, but the bulk of the planning would be done at the local level, so counties would have flexibility,” he says. “But that really hasn’t come to pass. In a state as big and diverse as Oregon, planning and zoning needs really should be driven at the local level. You have to understand, despite 40 years of centralized planning, we’re still the only state that’s doing it this way.”

Hunnicutt cites Oregon’s northern neighbor, Washington, where local jurisdictions have a greater say in their own planning, and the smallest rural towns can opt out altogether. “Out of the 39 counties, 10 aren’t subject to Washington’s statewide land-use laws, basically because there isn’t any growth to manage,” Hunnicutt explains. “We could take a page from that and allow some of our struggling, rural, nongrowing counties the opportunity to exercise some creativity, and try to kick-start their economy without the weight of 19 state land-use planning goals weighing over their heads.”



 

More Articles

Reimagining education to solve Oregon's student debt and underemployment problems

News
Thursday, November 13, 2014
carsonstudentdept-thumbBY RYAN CARSON | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

How do we skill up our future technology workforce in a smart way to take advantage of these high-paying jobs? The answer shouldn’t focus only on helping people get a bachelor’s degree.


Read more...

Free Falling

Contributed Blogs
Thursday, December 18, 2014
121714-oilprice-thumbBY JASON NORRIS | OB CONTRIBUTOR

The implosion of the energy complex: The best thing for low oil prices is low oil prices.


Read more...

The short list: Holiday habits of six Oregon CEOs

The Latest
Thursday, December 11, 2014
121214-xmaslist1BY JACOB PALMER | OB DIGITAL NEWS EDITOR

We ask business and nonprofit leaders how they survive the season.


Read more...

Corner Office: Pam Edstrom

January-Powerbook 2015
Saturday, December 13, 2014

Seven tidbits of information from an agency partner and co-founder of Waggener Edstrom in Lake Oswego.


Read more...

Healthcare pullback

News
Thursday, November 20, 2014
112014-boehnercare-thumbBY JASON NORRIS | OB CONTRIBUTOR

Each month for Oregon Business, we assess factors that are shaping current capital market activity—and what they mean to investors. Here we take a look at two major developments regarding possible rollbacks of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).


Read more...

Editor's Letter: Power Play

January-Powerbook 2015
Thursday, December 11, 2014

There’s a fascinating article in the December issue of the Harvard Business Review about a profound power shift taking place in business and society. It’s a long read, but the gist revolves around the tension between “old power” and “new power” as a driver of transformation. Here’s an excerpt:

Old power works like a currency. It is held by few. Once gained, it is jealously guarded, and the powerful have a substantial store of it to spend. It is closed, inaccessible, and leader-driven. It downloads, and it captures.

New power operates differently, like a current. It is made by many. It is open, participatory, and peer-driven. It uploads, and it distributes. Like water or electricity, it’s most forceful when it surges. The goal with new power is not to hoard it but to channel it.

The authors, Henry Timms and Jeremy Heimans, don’t necessarily favor one form of power over another but merely outline how power is transitioning, and how companies can take advantage of these changes to strengthen their positions in the marketplace. 

Our Powerbook issue might be viewed as a case study in the new-power transition. This annual book of lists provides information on leading businesses, nonprofits and universities in the state. Most of the featured companies are entrenched power players now pursuing more flexible and less hierarchical approaches to doing business. Law firms, for example, are adopting new technologies and fee structures to make legal services more accessible and affordable.

This month we also take a look at a controversial new U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring public companies to disclose the median pay of workers, as well as the ratio between CEO and median-worker pay. 

Part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law, the rule will compel public companies to be more open about employee compensation, with the assumption that greater transparency will improve corporate performance and, perhaps, help address one of the major challenges of our time: income inequality.

New power is not only about strategy and tactics, the Harvard Business Review authors say. “The ultimate questions are ethical. The big question is whether new power can genuinely serve the common good and confront society’s most intractable problems.”

That sounds like a call to arms. Or a New Year’s resolution. Old power or new, the goals are the same: to be a force for positive change in the world. Happy 2015!

— Linda


Read more...

Legislative Preview: A Shifting Balance

January-Powerbook 2015
Thursday, December 11, 2014
BY APRIL STREETER

Democratic gains pave the way for a revival of environment and labor bills as revenue reform languishes.


Read more...
Oregon Business magazinetitle-sponsored-links-02
SPONSORED LINKS