On this Valentines Day it seems appropriate to express my love for Oregon's land use system. It dates from 1973, shortly after when I moved to Oregon in 1971 to attend graduate school at Portland State University.
So yeah, I guess Senate Bill 100, which established the land use system, was intended in part to protect our state's farm and forest land from Californians like me. A Department of Land Conservation and Development web page summarizes the bill.
Oregonians in the 1960s and '70s became concerned as they watched rapid population growth begin to take place around the state. Lawmakers responded with Senate Bill 100, which Governor Tom McCall signed into law in 1973. At that time, farming and timber harvesting were the state’s largest industries and many Oregonians thought eventual development of land for new homes and industries would displace these economic engines. SB 100 tied local planning to a set of guiding statewide principles. The new law created the Land Conservation and Development Commission to craft the rules that guide the system. May 2023 marks the 50th Anniversary of Oregon's Land Use Planning Program.
Whenever you leave the city limits of an Oregon town and are instantly into a rural environment, rather than the sprawl that surrounds cities in most other states, you can thank our land use system's provision of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs). And those who have worked tirelessly to protect the proper use of UGBs, notably 1000 Friends of Oregon and associated groups like Friends of Marion County.
Those supporters of the land use system, and the current approach to expanding UGBs, were pleased when the 2023 legislature adjourned without passing a controversial bill, HB 3414. It was aimed at expanding affordable housing and failed by one vote. I wrote about this in "Here's the dumbest thing Oregon Republicans did this legislative session."
Stupidity isn't limited to one political party, for sure. There's plenty of dumb moves made by both Democrats and Republicans.
But I've got to give the award for the most egregious display of political cluelessness in the Oregon legislative session that concluded yesterday to four Republican senators and one independent, who I assume was Brian Boquist, as he used to be a Republican.
For even though the six-week walkout by Senate Republicans had ended after Democrats agreed to water down two bills dealing with abortion and gun control, those five senators didn't attend the last day of the session yesterday, Sunday, June 25.
As the Oregonian reports in "Oregon bill to accelerate housing development with change to urban growth boundaries fails by 1 vote," their absence doomed House Bill 3414, a Republican priority.
A contentious bill to increase Oregon’s supply of affordable housing failed Sunday by a single vote in the waning hours of the 2023 legislative session as five lawmakers who might have supported it remained out of the building.
House Bill 3414, introduced at the request of Gov. Tina Kotek, sought to accelerate housing development by streamlining planning and permitting, allowing variances to a variety of building requirements, and establishing a new state office to hold local jurisdictions accountable for meeting their communities’ housing needs.
The key, controversial provision added in recent days also would have allowed cities to expand their urban growth boundaries by up to 150 acres to accommodate more housing, provided some of it was highly affordable, without the usual process.
...The bill had unanimous support from Republicans present for the vote Sunday, but fell one vote short of the 16 it needed to pass the Senate on a day when four Republican lawmakers and one independent were absent following their walkout this session. Ten Democrats in the Senate also opposed the bill.
This was a golden opportunity for Republicans to pass a bill that weakened Oregon's land use system, which is much beloved by Democrats and environmentalists who favor strong urban growth boundaries that protect farm and forest land from unnecessary development.
But I guess the four Republican senators and one independent were so enamored with their previous walkout -- which was the longest in Oregon history and the second longest in the nation -- that they couldn't resist staying away from their legislative duties until the session ended.
In the short legislative session happening this month, Governor Kotek is making another try at passing affordable housing bills. Once again, the most controversial part of them is granting cities a one-time shot at expanding their Urban Growth Boundary.
The good news is that the 150 acre maximum expansion has been reduced to 50 or 100 acres, according to a 1000 Friends of Oregon report on the status of HB 1537.
What it does: The base bill of Governor Kotek’s housing bill, SB 1537, includes two provisions we strongly support: creation of the Housing Production Accountability Office and revolving loan funds for housing. It also initially included good infrastructure investment tools, some of which have since been wrapped into SB 1530 and are no longer part of SB 1537 now that the dash-9 amendment is adopted.
SB 1537 also has a flaw we can’t support: provisions that would override land use and environmental laws. SB 1537 would allow cities to expand their UGBs by at least 50 or 100 acres for residential and other uses, without following land use laws, to allow private developers to build homes primarily for people with higher incomes. (That UGB expansion acreage is down from 75 and 150 acres thanks to the dash-9 amendment, which reflects effective advocacy work by community organizations and individual Oregonians).
The bad news is that it appears likely that some sort of exemption of UGB expansion from land use laws will pass the legislature. However, the way I see it, Oregon's land use system has undergone many changes during its 50 year history. Most have been good. Some have been bad.
So even if some tweaks are made this year, our pioneering land use system will survive and hopefully prosper. Nature is continually changing. Our approach to preserving farm and and forest land must change also, or it will become so rigid, it won't be able to adapt to changing political and societal conditions.
Comments