91ÊÓƵ

Most of the Oregon planning program has been in place since Senate Bill 100 passed in 1973, and while there have been many changes – most notably the addition of the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals, in 1979 – the direction of the program and the structures of the agencies that implement it have stayed in place. And while some believe the controversies over the years concerning the preservation of farm and forest lands, the complexity of the system and the costs of urban infrastructure necessitated a review of the entire land-use system – indeed, I advocated such a review in the early 1980s – the controversies de jour and mere inertia made such a review a low priority.

The Oregon chapter of the American Planning Association (APA) raised the call for review of the system once again in 2000, when Measure 7, subsequently invalidated by the courts, was approved by the voters. The planning association saw voters’ support of Measure 7 as a wake-up call supporting a review of the planning system. But the 2001 Legislature did not provide for such a review, so the APA formed the Committee on the Oregon Planning Experience, or COPE, chaired by Nohad Toulan of Portland State University. The committee’s report, “An Evaluation of Planning in Oregon, 1973 – 2001,” recommended changes to the system.

The APA used the report to advocate for a review of the planning system in the 2003 Legislature but failed. However, the chapter in 2005, after some of Measure 7’s features were put to voters again in the form of Measure 37, was more successful. SB 82 established the “Big Look” task force and called on it to review the state’s land-use laws by 2009.

But lack of trust between the legislative leadership and the governor resulted in a requirement of unanimity among the House speaker, the Senate president and the governor in the appointment of task force members. This kept appointments from being completed until 2006, even though the task force needed time to hire staff, and its membership had to get acquainted. One of the considerations in the appointment of members was that none of the “usual suspects” in Oregon land-use planning were to serve on the Task Force. However, unlike a previous task force that looked at contentious issues concerning land use and economic development in the 1980s, there was no Stafford Hansell, a former legislator respected by all sides, to lead.

The 2005 Legislature didn’t adequately fund the task force, and its sole staff member was a Department of Land Conservation and Development employee. This lack of separation from state government made the task force nervous, moving it to hire independent consultants for advice. By the time the 2007 Legislature began, some representatives saw little to show for the expenditures to date, and there was no legislative champion for the task force to ask their support.

The consultants proposed alternative land-use systems, suggesting they might work better than the current system. But a combination of discomfort with the task force’s work, perceived lack of public involvement and the possibility that the task force’s work might distract public attention from Measure 49 (the legislative “fix” for Measure 37) moved legislators to agree with the co-chairmen of the Ways and Means Committee, who recommended the task force be put on hold, at least until after the Measure 49 vote.

This turn of events might not have been fair to the task force, which was denied an opportunity to complete its work. The governor and the legislative leadership say the task force will be back, but its resurrection is by no means assured.

Edward J. Sullivan has specialized in land use law for over 35 years and is an owner in the Portland Office of Garvey Schubert Barer. Mr. Sullivan is the Immediate Past Chair of the State and Local Government Law Section of the American Bar Association and may be reached at 503-228-3939 or at [email protected].