This is one of the serious problems with this plan as it is now written. There is no affirmative process for protecting farmland in general, or even the farmland that is critical to this region’s agricultural economy. As the article noted, 1200 acres of the best farmland in the Bear Creek Valley, where Medford is located, are slated for inclusion in this long-range development plan. The folks who have put this plan together argue that these high value farmlands are needed for future expansion, yet by the plan’s own calculations most of these lands could be left out if it committed to only modest increases in density.

If the plan took this approach it would also ensure that there could be a viable mass transit system in the future in the Valley. As it stands, the densities committed to in the plan preclude cost effective mass transit within its 50 year planning horizon. (A viable public transportation system requires a minimum density of 7 dwelling units per gross residential acre; this plan has committed to an average density of only 6.4.) This lack of commitment to densities that would support even a modest level of mass transit will mean more cars and precious public funds dedicated to creating the road infrastructure necessary to accommodate the plan’s expected doubling of cars in the area. This is just inexcusably poor planning given all that is known about the consequences of auto dependence, the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico being just one grave example.

This plan could easily address the two intimately connected issues of farmland preservation and viable public transit. Unfortunately, it seems that the status quo is to accommodate the interests of land speculators first, and plan for a more efficient and livable community as a distant second. The plan is also questionable on a legal level as state laws require that high value farmlands such as those included in this plan be left out unless no other reasonable alternative is available.

Well, a reasonable alternative is available: Commit to infill, redevelopment and increased density within the existing city limits and Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) of the cities involved in this plan. Doing this would remove twelve percent of the projected acreage assumed to be needed for growth. Add to this alternative the higher density level option in the plan and even more farmland can be saved.

No extreme makeover is required to keep the high value farmlands out of this regional plan. Yet so far, all of the cities except Ashland (which has elected not to add any Urban Reserves) have stubbornly resisted removing any high value farmlands from the plan even though one of the three goals of the plan is to save farmland from urbanization.

Although regional planning would highly benefit this part of Southern Oregon by allowing coordination between the cities and county, the core issue of protecting farmland has been lost in the rush to get lands locked into Urban Reserves. So while the idea of regional planning still holds promise, this plan falls far too short of fulfilling that promise. It is really too bad we can’t do like they are doing in Metro and establish Rural Reserves.

– Sarah Vaile, Rogue Advocates